!^:'I<ll?'''^'-'i?v!i'';''^i';ii:':'' 


BS  1555.4  .A548  c.l 

Anderson,  Robert 

Daniel  in  the  critics'  den 


DANIEL    IN 


THE    CRITICS'    DEN 


U     y-S'.  19  1922 

D  A  N I E  L^\^^^, --^-.v^ 

IN 

THE    CRITICS'    DEN 


A  REPLY  TO  PROFESSOR   DRIVER  OF  OXFORD 
AND  THE  DEAN  OF  CANTERBURY 


/ 


BY 


SIR  ROBERT  ANDERSON,  K.C.B.,  LL.D. 

AUTHOR   OF    "the   SILENCE   OF   GOD,"    "  THE    BUDDHA   OF 

CHRISTENDOM,"    "  THE   COMING   PRINCE,    OR   THE 

SEVENTY  WEEKS   OF   DANIEL,"  ETC.    ETC. 


FLEMING    H.    REVELL   COMPANY 
NEW  YORK       CHICAGO       TORONTO 


PREFACE 

Although  this  volume  appears  under  an  old 
title,  it  is  practically  a  new  work.  The  title 
remains,  lest  any  who  possess  my  "  Reply  to 
Dean  Farrar's  Book  of  Daniel "  should  feel 
aggrieved  on  finding  part  of  that  treatise 
reproduced  under  a  new  designation.-^  But 
the  latter  half  of  this  book  is  new ;  and  the 
whole  has  been  recast,  in  view  of  its  main 
purpose  and  aim  as  a  reply  to  Professor 
Driver's  Commentary  in  "  The  Cambridge 
Bible  "  series. 

The  appearance  of  Professor  Driver's  Book 
of  Daniel  marks  an  epoch  in  the  Daniel 
controversy.  Hitherto  there  has  been  no 
work  in  existence  which  English  exponents 
of  the  sceptical  hypothesis  would  accept  as 

^  It  appeared  first  as  an  article  in  Blackwood' s  Magazine, 
and  afterwards  separately  in  book  form. 


VI  PREFACE 

a  fair  and  adequate  expression  of  their  views. 
But  now  the  oracle  has  spoken.  The  most 
trusted  champion  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
in  England  has  formulated  the  case  against 
the  Book  of  Daniel  ;  and  if  that  case  can 
be  refuted — if  it  can  be  shown  that  its  ap- 
parent force  depends  on  a  skilful  presentation 
of  doubtful  evidence  upon  the  one  side,  to 
the  exclusion  of  overwhelmingly  cogent  evi- 
dence upon  the  other — the  result  ought  to 
be  an  "end  of  controversy"  on  the  whole 
question. 

It  rests  with  others  to  decide  whether 
this  result  is  established  in  the  following 
pages.  I  am  willing  to  stake  it  upon  the 
issues  specified  in  Chapter  VII.  And  even 
if  the  reader  should  see  fit  to  make  that 
chapter  the  starting-point  of  his  perusal  of 
my  book,  I  am  still  prepared  to  claim  his 
verdict  in  favour  of  Daniel. 

And  here  I  should  premise,  what  will  be 
found  more  than  once  repeated  in  the 
sequel,    that    the    inquiry    involved    in    the 


^  PREFACE  Vll 

Daniel  controversy  is  essentially  judicial. 
An  experienced  Judge  with  an  intelligent 
jury — any  tribunal,  indeed,  accustomed  to 
sift  and  weigh  conflicting  testimony — would 
be  better  fitted  to  deal  with  it  than  a  com- 
pany of  all  the  philologists  of  Christendom. 
The  philologist's  proper  place  is  in  the 
witness-chair.  He  can  supply  but  a  part, 
and  that  by  no  means  the  most  important 
part,  of  the  necessary  evidence.  And  if  a 
single  well-ascertained  fact  be  inconsistent 
with  his  theories,  the  fact  must  prevail. 
But  this  the  specialist  is  proverbially  slow 
to  recognise.  He  is  always  apt  to  exag- 
gerate the  importance  of  his  own  testimony, 
and  to  betray  impatience  when  evidence  of 
another  kind  is  allowed  leg^Itimate  weigfht. 
And  nowhere  is  this  tendency  more  marked 
than  among  the  critics. 

In  the  preface  to  his  Continuity  of  Scrip- 
ture, Lord  Hatherley  speaks  of  "the  sup- 
posed evidence  on  which  are  based  some 
very    confident   assertions    of  a   self-styled 


viii  PREFACE 

'higher  criticism.'  "  And  he  adds,  "  Assum- 
ing  the  learning  to  be  profound  and  accurate 
which  has  collected  the  material  for  much 
critical  performance,  the  logic  by  which  con-, 
elusions  are  deduced  from  those  materials 
is  frequently  grievously  at  fault,  and  open 
to  the  judgment  of  all  who  may  have  been 
accustomed  to  sift  and  weigh  evidence." 
My  apology  for  this  book  is  that  I  can 
claim  a  humble  place  in  the  category  de- 
scribed in  these  concluding  words.  Long 
accustomed  to  deal  with  evidence  in  diffi- 
cult and  intricate  inquiries,  I  have  set 
myself  to  investigate  the  genuineness  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel,  and  the  results  of  my 
inquiry  are  here  recorded. 

Lord  Hatherley  was  not  the  only  Lord 
Chancellor  of  our  time  to  whom  earnest 
thought  and  study  brought  a  settled  con- 
viction of  the  Divine  authority  and  absolute 
integrity  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  two  very 
great  men  who  in  turn  succeeded  him  in 
that  high  office,  though  versed  in  the  litera- 


PREFACE  IX 

ture  of  the  critics,  held  unflinchingly  to  the 
same  conclusion.  And  while  some,  perhaps, 
would  dismiss  the  judgment  of  men  like 
Lord  Cairns  and  Lord  Selborne  as  being 
that  of  "  mere  laymen,"  sensible  people  the 
whole  world  over  would  accept  their  de- 
cision upon  an  intricate  judicial  question  of 
this  kind  against  that  of  all  the  pundits  of 
Christendom. 

As  regards  my  attitude  towards  criticism, 
I  deprecate  being  misunderstood.  Every 
book  I  have  written  gives  proof  of  fear- 
lessness in  applying  critical  methods  to  the 
study  of  the  Bible,  But  the  Higher  Criticism 
is  a  mere  travesty  of  all  true  criticism.  Secu- 
lar writers  are  presumed  to  be  trustworthy 
unless  reason  is  found  to  discredit  their 
testimony.  But  the  Higher  Criticism  starts 
with  the  assumption  that  everything  in 
Scripture  needs  to  be  confirmed  by  ex- 
ternal evidence.  It  reeks  of  its  evil  origin 
in  German  infidelity.  My  indictment  of  it, 
therefore,  is  not  that  it  is  criticism,  but  that 


X  PREFACE 

it  is  criticism  of  a  low  and  spurious  type, 
akin  to  that  for  which  the  baser  sort  of 
"Old  Bailey"  practitioner  is  famed.  True 
criticism  seeks  to  elucidate  the  truth  :  the 
Higher  Criticism  aims  at  establishing  pre- 
judged results.  And  in  exposing  such  a 
system  the  present  volume  has  an  import- 
ance far  beyond  the  special  subject  of  which 
it  treats. 

A  single  instance  will  suffice.  The  "  An- 
nalistic  tablet"  of  Cyrus,  which  records  his 
conquest  of  Babylon,  is  received  by  the 
critics  as  Gospel  truth,  albeit  the  deception 
which  underlies  it  would  be  clear  even  to 
a  clever  schoolboy.  But  even  as  read  by 
the  critics  it  affords  confirmation  of  Daniel 
which  is  startling  in  its  definiteness  in  regard 
to  Belshazzar  and  Darius  the  Mede.  It 
tells  us  that  the  capture  of  the  inner  city 
was  marked  by  the  death  of  Belshazzar,  or 
(as  the  inscription  calls  him  throughout) 
"the  son  of  the  king."  And  further,  we 
learn    from    it    that    Cyrus's    triumph    was 


PREFACE  XI 

shared  by  a  Median  of  such  note  that  his 
name  was  united  with  his  own  in  the  pro- 
clamation of  an  amnesty.  And  yet  so  fixed 
is  the  determination  of  the  critics  to  discredit 
the  Book  of  Daniel,  that  all  this  is  ignored. 

The  inadequacy  of  the  reasons  put    for- 
ward   for    rejecting    Daniel    clearly   indicate 
that  there  is  some  potent  reason  of  another 
kind  in  the  background.      It  was  the  miracu- 
lous element  in  the  book  that  set  the  whole 
pack  of  foreign  sceptics  in  full  cry.     In  this 
age   of  a    silent   heaven  such  men  will   not 
tolerate  the  idea  that  God  ever  intervened 
directly  in   the  affairs  of  men.     But  this  is 
too  large  a  subject  for  incidental  treatment. 
I  have  dealt  with  it  in  The  Silence  of  God, 
and  I  would  refer  specially  to  Chapter  III. 
of  that  work. 

Other  incidental  questions  involved  in  the 
controversy  I  have  treated  of  here  ;  but  as 
they  are  incidental,  I  have  relegated  them 
to  the  Appendix.  And  if  any  one  claims  a 
fuller  discussion  of  them,  I  must  ask  leave 


Xll  PREFACE 

to  refer  to  the  work  alluded  to  by  Professor 
Driver  in  his  Book  of  Daniel — namely,  The 
Coming  Prmce,  or  The  Seventy  Weeks  of 
Daniel. 

R.  A. 


CONTENTS 


I.    THE       "higher       criticism,"       AND       DEAN 

FARRAR's    ESTIMATE    OF   THE    BIBLE  .  .  I 

II.    THE    HISTORICAL    ERRORS    OF   DANIEL   .  .  12 

III.  HISTORICAL    ERRORS    CONTINUED  :    BELSHAZ- 

ZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE   MEDE     .  .  -23 

IV,  "  PHILOLOGICAL    PECULIARITIES  "  :    THE   LAN- 

GUAGE   OF   DANIEL    .....         42 

V.    THE     POSITIVE      EVIDENCE     IN      FAVOUR     OF 

DANIEL 56 

VI.    "VIOLENT   errors" 79 

VII.    PROFESSOR    driver's    "BOOK    OF    DANIEL" — 

the  evidence  of  the  canon         .         .       92 

viii.  the  vision  of  the   "seventy  weeks " — 

the  prophetic  vear      .         .         .         .112 

ix.  the  fulfilment   of  the  vision  of  the 

"weeks" 124 

x.  summary  and  conclusion         .        .         -135 

xiii 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


APPENDICES 

I.  Nebuchadnezzar's     first     invasion     of 
JUDEA      

II.    THE   DEATH    OF    BELSHAZZAR 

III.  THE   PUNCTUATION    OF    DANIEL    IX.    2$ 

IV.  THE   JEWISH    CALENDAR 
V.    THE    TWENTIETH   YEAR    OF   ARTAXERXES 

VI.    THE    DATE    OF   THE    CRUCIFIXION 


153 

i6o 
167 
171 

174 
176 


VII.    PROFESSOR  DRIVER  S  INDICTMENT  OF  DANIEL       I  79 


INDEX 


183 


Daniel  in  the  Critics'   Den 


CHAPTER    I 

THE  "higher  criticism,"  AND   DEAN  FARRAr's 
ESTIMATE    OF   THE   BIBLE 

By  "all  people  of  discernment"  the  "Higher 
Criticism"  is  now  held  in  the  greatest  repute. 
And  discernment  is  a  quality  for  which  the 
dullest  of  men  are  keen  to  claim  credit.  It 
may  safely  be  assumed  that  not  one  person 
in  a  score  of  those  who  eagerly  disclaim 
belief  in  the  visions  of  Daniel  has  ever 
seriously  considered  the  question.  The  liter- 
ature upon  the  subject  is  but  dull  reading 
at  best,  and  the  inquiry  demands  a  combina- 
tion of  qualities  which  is  comparatively  rare. 
A  newspaper  review  of  some  ponderous  trea- 
tise, or  a  frothy  discourse  by  some  popular 
preacher,  will  satisfy  most  men.  The  Ger- 
man  literature    upon    the   controversy  they 


2  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

know  nothing  of,  and  the  erudite  writings 
of  scholars  are  by  no  means  to  their  taste, 
and  probably  beyond  their  capacity.  Dean 
Farrar's  Book  of  Daniel  therefore  meets 
a  much-felt  want.  Ignored  by  scholars  it 
certainly  will  be,  and  the  majority  of  serious 
theologians  will  deplore  it ;  but  it  supplies 
"  the  man  in  the  street "  with  a  reason  for 
the  unfaith  that  is  in  him. 

The  narrowness  with  which  it  emphasises 
everything  that  either  erudition  or  ignorance 
can  urge  upon  one  side  of  a  great  contro- 
versy, to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest,  will 
relieve  him  from  the  irksome  task  of  think- 
ing out  the  problem  for  himself;  and  its 
pedantry  is  veiled  by  rhetoric  of  a  type 
which  will  admirably  suit  him.  He  can- 
not fail  to  be  deeply  impressed  by  "the 
acervation  of  endless  conjectures,"  and  "the 
unconsciously  disingenuous  resourcefulness 
of  traditional  harmonics."  His  acquaintance 
with  the  unseen  world  will  be  enlarged  by 
discovering  that  Gabriel,  who  appeared  to 
the  prophet,   is    "the  archangel";^  and  by 

1  P.  275. 


THE    "  HIGHER    CRITICISM  "  3 

learning  that  "  it  is  only  after  the  Exile  that 
we  find  angels  and  demons  playing  a  more 
prominent  part  than  before,  divided  into 
classes,  and  even  marked  out  by  special 
names."  ^  It  is  not  easy  to  decide  whether 
this  statement  is  the  more  astonishing  when 
examined  as  a  specimen  of  English,  or  when 
regarded  as  a  dictum  to  guide  us  in  the 
study  of  Scripture.  But  all  this  relates  only 
to  the  form  of  the  book.  When  we  come  to 
consider  its  substance,  the  spirit  which  per 
vades  it,  and  the  results  to  which  it  leads,  a 
sense  of  distress  and  shame  will  commingle 
with  our  amazement. 

What  the  dissecting-room  is  to  the  phy- 
sician criticism  is  to  the  theologian.  In  its 
proper  sphere  it  is  most  valuable ;  and  it 
has  made  large  additions  to  our  knowledge 
of  the  Bible.  But  it  demands  not  only  skill 
and  care,  but  reverence  ;  and  if  these  be 
wanting,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  mischievous. 
A  man  of  the  baser  sort  may  become  so 
degraded  by  the  use  of  the  surgeon's  knife 
that  he   loses   all   respect  for   the    body  of 

'  P.  191. 


4  DANIEL    IN    THE   CRITICS*    DEN 

his  patient,  and  the  sick-room  is  to  him  but 
the  antechamber  to  the  mortuary.  And  can 
we  with  impunity  forget  the  reverence  that 
s  due  to  "  the  Hving  and  eternally  abiding 
word  of  God  "  ?  ^ 

It  behoves  us  to  distinguish  between  true 
criticism  as  a  means  to  clear  away  from  that 
word  corruptions  and  excrescences,  and  to 
gain  a  more  intelligent  appreciation  of  its 
mysteries,  and  the  Higher  Criticism  as  a 
rationalistic  and  anti-christian  crusade.  The 
end  and  aim  of  this  movement  is  to  eliminate 
God  from  the  Bible.  It  was  the  impure 
growth  of  the  scepticism  which  well-nigh 
swamped  the  religious  life  of  Germany  in 
the  eighteenth  century. 

Eichhorn  set  himself  to  account  for  the 
miracles  of  Scripture.  The  poetic  warmth 
of  oriental  thought  and  language  sufficed,  in 
his  judgment,  to  explain  them.  The  writers 
wrote  as  they  were  accustomed  to  think, 
leaving  out  of  view  all  second  causes,  and 
attributing  results  immediately  to  God.  This 
theory  had  its  day.     It  obtained  enthusiastic 

1  I  Pet.  i.  23. 


THE    "  HIGHER    CRITICISM  "  5 

acceptance  for  a  time.  But  rival  hypotheses 
were  put  forward  to  dispute  its  sway,  and  at 
last  it  was  discarded  in  favour  of  the  system 
with  which  the  name  of  De  Wette  is  promi- 
nently associated.  The  sacred  writers  were 
honest  and  true,  but  their  teaching  was 
based,  not  upon  personal  knowledge,  still 
less  upon  divine  inspiration,  but  upon 
ancient  authorities  by  which  they  were 
misled.  Their  errors  were  due  to  the  ex- 
cessive literalness  with  which  they  accepted 
as  facts  the  legends  of  earlier  days.  De 
Wette,  like  Eichhorn,  desired  to  rescue 
the  Bible  from  the  reproach  which  had 
fallen  upon  it.  Upon  them  at  least  the 
halo  of  departed  truth  still  rested.  But 
others  were  restrained  by  no  such  influence. 
With  the  ignorance  of  Pagans  and  the 
animus  of  apostates  they  perverted  the 
Scriptures  and  tore  them  to  pieces. 

One  of  the  old  Psalms,^  in  lamenting  with 
exquisite  sadness  the  ruin  brought  by  the 
heathen  upon  the  holy  city  and  land,  declares 
that  fame  was  apportioned  according  to  zeal 

'  Ps.  Ixxiv. 


6  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

and  success  in  the  work  of  destruction.  A 
like  spirit  has  animated  the  host  of  the 
critics.  It  is  a  distressing  and  baneful 
ordeal  to  find  oneself  in  the  company  of 
those  who  have  no  belief  in  the  virtue  of 
women.  The  mind  thus  poisoned  learns  to 
regard  with  suspicion  the  purest  inmates  of 
a  pure  home.  And  a  too  close  familiarity 
with  the  vile  literature  of  the  sceptics  leads 
to  a  kindred  distrust  of  all  that  is  true  and 
holy  in  our  most  true  and  holy  faith.  Every 
chapter  of  this  book  gives  proof  to  what 
an  extent  its  author  has  suffered  this  moral 
and  spiritual  deterioration  ;  and  no  one  can 
accept  its  teaching  without  sinking,  imper- 
ceptibly it  may  be,  but  surely  and  inevitably, 
to  the  same  level.  Kuenen,  one  of  the 
worst  of  the  foreign  sceptics,  is  Dean  Far- 
rar's  master  and  guide  in  the  interpretation 
of  Daniel.  And  the  result  is  that  he  revels 
in  puerilities  and  extravagances  of  exegesis 
and  criticism  which  the  best  of  our  British 
contemporary  scholars  are  careful  to  re- 
pudiate. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  is  not   "  the  work  of 


THE    "HIGHER    CRITICISM"  7 

a  prophet  in  the  Exile "  (if  indeed  such  a 
personage  as  Daniel  ever  really  existed), 
"  but  of  some  faithful  Chasid  in  the  days 
of  the  Seleucid  tyrant."^  Its  pretended 
miracles  are  but  moral  fables.  Its  history 
is  but  idle  legend,  abounding  in  "violent 
errors  "of  the  grossest  kind.^  Its  so-called 
predictions  alone  are  accurate,  because  they 
were  but  the  record  of  recent  or  contem- 
porary events.  But  Dr.  Farrar  will  not  tol- 
erate a  word  of  blame  upon  "the  holy  and 
gifted  Jew"^  who  wrote  it.  No  thought 
of  deceiving  any  one  ever  crossed  his  mind.* 
The  reproach  which  has  been  heaped  upon 
him  has  been  wholly  owing  to  Jewish  arro- 
gance and  Christian  stupidity  in  misreading 
his  charming  and  elevating  romance.  For 
it  is  not  only  fiction,  but  ^'avowed  fiction,"^ 
and  was  never  meant  to  be  regarded  in  any 
other  light.  In  a  word,  the  book  is  nothing 
more  than  a  religious  novel,  differing  from 
other  kindred  works  only  in  its  venerable 
antiquity  and  the  multiplicity  of  its  blunders. 

^  P.  ii8.  2  p_  45^ 

3  P.  119.  *Pp.  43,  85.  sp.  43. 


8  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

Accepting  these  results,  then,  what  action 
shall  we  take  upon  them  ?  In  proportion 
surely  to  our  appreciation  of  the  precious- 
ness  of  Holy  Scripture,  shall  be  our  resolute- 
ness in  tearing  the  Book  of  Daniel  from 
its  place  in  the  sacred  canon,  and  relegating 
it  to  the  same  shelf  with  Bel  and  the  Dragon 
and  The  Story  of  Susaitna.  By  no  means. 
Dr.  Farrar  will  stay  our  hand  by  the 
assurance  that — 

"Those  results  .  .  .  are  in  no  way  derogatory 
to  the  preciousness  of  this  Old  Testament  Apoca- 
lypse." "No  words  of  mine,"  he  declares,  "can 
exaggerate  the  value  which  I  attach  to  this  part  of 
our  Canonical  Scriptures.  .  .  .  Its  right  to  a  place 
in  the  Canon  is  undisputed  and  indisputable,  and 
there  is  scarcely  a  single  book  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  can  be  made  more  richly  '  profitable 
for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruc- 
tion in  righteousness :  that  the  man  of  God  may 
be  complete,  completely  furnished  unto  every  good 
work.' "  1 

■^  P.  4.  Again  and  again  throughout  this  volume  the 
author  uses  Hke  words  in  praise  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 
Here  are  a  few  of  them  :  "  It  is  indeed  a  noble  book,  full 
of  glorious  lessons  "  (p.  36).  "  Its  high  worth  and  canonical 
authority"  (p.  37).  "So  far  from  undervaluing  its  teach- 
ing,  I  have  always  been   strongly  drawn   to  this   book  of 


THE    "  HIGHER  CRITICISM  "  9 

Christian  writers  who  find  reason  to  reject 
one  portion  of  the  sacred  canon  or  another 
are  usually  eager  to  insist  that  in  doing  so 
they  increase  the  authority  and  enhance  the 
value  of  the  rest.  It  has  remained  for  the 
Dean  of  Canterbury,  in  impugning  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  to  insult  and  degrade  the  Bible 
as  a  whole.  An  expert  examines  for  me 
the  contents  of  my  purse.  I  spread  out 
nine-and-thirty  sovereigns  upon  the  table, 
and  after  close  inspection  he  marks  out  one 
as  a  counterfeit.  As  I  console  myself 
for  the  loss  by  the  deepened  confidence  I 
feel  that  all  the  rest  are  sterling  coin,  he 
checks  me  by  the  assurance  that  there  is 
scarcely  a  single  one  of  them  which  is  any 
better.  The  Book  of  Daniel  is  nothing 
more  than  a  religious  novel,  and  it  teems 
with  errors  on  every  page,  and  yet  we  are 
gravely  told  that  of  all  the  thirty-nine  books 

Scripture"  (p.  37).  "We  acknowledge  the  canonicity  of 
the  book,  its  high  value  when  rightly  apprehended,  and 
its  rightful  acceptance  as  a  sacred  book"  (p.  90).  And 
most  wonderful  of  all,  at  p.  118  the  author  declares  that, 
in  exposing  it  as  a  work  of  fiction,  "We  add  to  its  real 
value  "  ! 


lO  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

of  the  Old  Testament  there  is  scarcely  a 
single  book  which  is  of  any  higher  worth ! 
The  expert's  estimate  of  the  value  of  my 
coins  is  clear.  No  less  obvious  is  Dr. 
Farrar's  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible. 

It  is  precisely  this  element  which  renders 
this  volume  so  pernicious.  The  apostle  de- 
clares that  "  Every  Scripture  inspired  of  God 
is  also  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness : 
that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete,  fur- 
nished completely  unto  every  good  work  ; 


"  1 


*  2  Tim.  iii.  i6.  I  quote  the  R.V.  because  it  gives  more 
unequivocal  testimony  to  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  than 
does  the  A.V.  According  to  the  A.V.  the  apostle  asserts 
that  all  Scripture  is  inspired  of  God  :  according  to  the 
R.V.  he  assumes  this  as  a  truth  which  does  not  need  even 
to  be  asserted.  For  "  every  Scripture  "  here  means  every 
part  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
sentence.  Indeed,  ypaf^r]  has  as  definite  a  meaning  in 
N.T.  Greek  as  "  Scripture "  has  in  English,  and  is  never 
used  save  of  Holy  Scripture.  But  I  am  bound  in  honesty 
to  add  that  I  believe  the  R.V.  is  wrong,  albeit  it  has  the 
authority  of  some  of  our  earlier  versions.  The  same  con- 
struction occurs  in  eight  other  passages,  viz.,  Rom.  vii.  12  ; 
I  Cor.  xi.  30;  2  Cor.  x.  10  ;  i  Tim.  i.  15,  ii.  3,  iv.  4,  9; 
Heb.  iv.  13.  Why  did  the  Revisers  not  read,  e.g .,  "  the  holy 
commandment  is  also  just  and  good"  (Rom.  vii.  12);  and 
"many  weak  ones  are  also  sickly"  (i  Cor.  xi.  30)  ? 


THE    "HIGHER   CRITICISM"  II 

and  in  profanely  applying  these  words  to  a 
romance  of  doubtful  repute,  Dr.  Farrar  denies 
inspiration  altogether. 

But  "  What  is  inspiration  ? "  some  one 
may  demand.  In  another  connection  the 
inquiry  might  be  apt ;  here  it  is  the  merest 
quibble.  Plain  men  brush  aside  all  the  in- 
tricacies of  the  controversy  which  the  answer 
involves,  and  seize  upon  the  fact  that  the 
Bible  is  a  divine  revelation.  But  no  one 
can  yield  to  the  spirit  which  pervades  this 
book  without  coming  to  raise  the  question, 
"Have  we  a  revelation  at  all?"  The 
Higher  Criticism,  as  a  rationalistic  crusade, 
has  set  itself  to  account  for  the  Bible  on 
natural  principles  ;  and  this  is  the  spirit 
which  animates  the  Dean  of  Canterbury's 
treatise. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE    HISTORICAL    ERRORS    OF    DANIEL 

'*  The  historical  errors "  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel  are  the  first  ground  of  the  critic's 
attack.  Of  these  he  enumerates  the  follow- 
ing :— 

(i.)  "There  was  no  deportation  in  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim." 

(2.)  "There  was  no  King  Belshazzar." 

(3.)  "  There  was  no  Darius  the  Mede." 

(4.)  "  It  is  not  true  that  there  were  only 
two  Babylonian  kings — there  were  five." 

(5.)  "Nor  were  there  only  four  Persian 
kings — there  were  twelve." 

(6.)  Xerxes  seems  to  be  confounded  with 
the  last  king  of  Persia. 

(7.)  And  "All  correct  accounts  of  the 
reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  seem  to  end 
about  B.C.  164." 

Such   is  the  indictment  under  this  head. 


HISTORICAL    ERRORS    OF    DANIEL  1 3 

Two  Other  points  are  included,  but  these 
have  nothing  to  do  with  history ;  first,  that 
the  decrees  of  Nebuchadnezzar  are  extra- 
ordinary— which  may  at  once  be  conceded  ; 
and  secondly,  that  "  the  notion  that  a 
faithful  Jew  could  become  president  of  the 
Chaldean  magi  is  impossible" — a  statement 
which  only  exemplifies  the  thoughtless  dog- 
matism of  the  writer,  for,  according  to  his 
own  scheme,  it  was  a  ''holy  and  gifted 
Jew"  brought  up  under  the  severe  ritual 
of  post-exilic  days,  who  assigned  this  posi- 
tion to  Daniel.  A  like  remark  applies  to 
his  criticism  upon  Dan.  ii.  46 — with  this 
addition,  that  that  criticism  betokens  either 
carelessness  or  malice  on  the  part  of  the 
critics,  for  the  passage  in  no  way  justifies 
the  assertion  that  the  prophet  accepted 
either  the  worship  or  the  sacrifice  offered 
him. 

So  far  as  the  other  points  are  concerned, 
we  may  at  once  dismiss  (4),  (5),  and  (6),  for 
the  errors  here  ascribed  to  Daniel  will  be 
sought  for  in  vain.  They  are  "read  into" 
the  book  by  the  perverseness  or  ignorance 


14  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

of  the  rationalists.^  And  as  for  (7),  where 
was  the  account  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus 
to  end,  if  not  in  the  year  of  his  death ! 
The  statement  is  one  of  numerous  in- 
stances of  sHpshod  carelessness  in  this 
extraordinary  addition  to  our  theological 
literature. 

The  Bible  states  that  there  was  a  depor- 
tation in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  :  the  critic 
asserts  there  was  none  ;  and  the  Christian 
must  decide  between   them.       Nothing  can 

*  As  regards  (5)  and  (6),  the  way  "kisses  and  kicks"  alter- 
nate in  Dr.  Farrar's  treatment  of  his  mythical  "  Chasid  "  is 
amusing.  At  one  moment  he  is  praised  for  his  genius  and 
erudition  ;  the  next  he  is  denounced  as  an  ignoramus  or  a 
fool  !  Considering  how  inseparably  the  history  of  Judah 
had  been  connected  with  the  history  of  Persia,  the  sugges- 
tion that  a  cultured  Jew  of  Maccabean  days  could  have 
made  the  gross  blunder  here  attributed  to  him  is  quite 
unworthy  of  notice. 

And  may  I  explain  for  the  enlightenment  of  the  critics 
that  Dan.  xi.  2  is  a  prophecy  relating  to  the  prophecy  which 
precedes  it  ?  It  is  a  consecutive  prediction  of  events  witJiin 
the  period  of  the  seventy  weeks.  There  were  to  be  "  yet " 
{i.e.,  after  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem)  "  three  kings  in 
Persia."  These  were  Darius  Nothus,  Artaxerxes  Mnemon, 
and  Ochus  ;  the  brief  and  merely  nominal  reigns  of  Xerxes 
II.,  Sogdianus,  and  Arogus  being  ignored — two  of  them, 
indeed,  being  omitted  from  the  canon  of  Ptolemy.  "The 
fourth"  (and  last)  king  was  Darius  Codomanus,  whose 
fabulous  wealth  attracted  the  cupidity  of  the  Greeks. 


HISTORICAL    ERRORS    OF    DANIEL  I  5 

be  clearer  than  the  language  of  Chronicles  ;  ^ 
and,  even  regarding  the  book  as  a  purely 
secular  record,  it  is  simply  preposterous 
to  reject  without  a  shadow  of  reason  the 
chronicler's  statement  on  a  matter  of  such 
immense  interest  and  importance  in  the 
national  history.  But,  it  is  objected,  Kings 
and  Jeremiah  are  silent  upon  the  subject. 
If  this  were  true,  which  it  is  not,  it 
would  be  an  additional  reason  for  turning 
to  Chronicles  to  supply  the  omission.  But 
Kings  gives  clear  corroboration  of  Chron- 
icles. Speaking  of  Jehoiakim,  it  says:  "In 
his  days  Nebuchadnezzar,  King  of  Babylon, 
came  up,  and  Jehoiakim  became  his  servant 
three  years ;  then  he  turned  and  rebelled 
against  him."  ^  DanieP  tells  us  this  was 
in  his  third  year,  and  that  Jerusalem  was 
besieged  upon  the  occasion.  This  difficulty 
again  springs  from  the  habit  of  "  reading 
into  "  Scripture  more  than  it  says.  There 
is  not  a  word  about  a  taking  by  storm. 
The  king  was  a  mere  puppet,  and  presum- 

^  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6. 
^  3  Kings  xxiv.  i.  ^  Ch.  i.  i, 


l6  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

ably  he  made  his  submission  as  soon  as  the 
city  was  invested.  Nebuchadnezzar  took  him 
prisoner,  but  afterwards  relented,  and  left  him 
in  Jerusalem  as  his  vassal,  a  position  he  had 
till  then  held  under  the  King  of  Egypt. 

But  Dr.  Farrar's  statements  here  are 
worthy  of  fuller  notice,  so  thoroughly  typi- 
cal are  they  of  his  style  and  methods.  For 
three  years  Jehoiakim  was  Nebuchadnezzar's 
vassal.  This  is  admitted,  and  Scripture 
accounts  for  it  by  recording  a  Babylonian 
invasion  in  his  third  year.  But,  says  the 
critic  : — 

"  It  was  not  till  the  following  year,  when  Nebu- 
chadrezzar, acting  as  his  father's  general,  had 
defeated  Egypt  at  the  battle  of  Carchemish,  that 
any  siege  of  Jerusalem  would  have  been  pos- 
sible. Nor  did  Nebuchadrezzar  advance  against 
the  Holy  City  even  after  the  battle  of  Carchemish, 
but  dashed  home  across  the  desert  to  secure  the 
crown  of  Babylon  on  hearing  the  news  of  his  father's 
death." 

The  idea  of  dashing  across  the  desert 
from  Carchemish  to  Babylon  is  worthy  of 
a  board- school  essay!  The  critic  is  here 
adopting    the     record    of    the     Babylonian 


HISTORICAL    ERRORS    OF    DANIEL  1 7 

historian  Berosus,  in  complete  unconscious- 
ness of  the  significance  of  his  testimony. 
We  learn  from  Berosus  that  it  was  as  Prince- 
royal  of  Babylon,  at  the  head  of  his  father's 
army,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  invaded  Palestine. 
And,  after  recording  how  in  the  course  of 
that  expedition  Nebuchadnezzar  heard  of 
his  father's  death,  the  historian  goes  on  to 
relate  that  he  "  committed  the  captives  he 
had  take7t  from  the  Jews''  to  the  charge 
of  others,  "while  he  went  in  haste  over  the 
desert  to  Babylon."^  Could  corroboration  of 
Scripture  be  more  complete  and  emphatic  ? 
The  fact  that  he  had  Jewish  captives  is 
evidence  that  he  had  invaded  Judea.  Proof 
of  it  is  afforded  by  the  further  fact  that 
the  desert  lay  between  him  and  Babylon. 
Carchemish  was  in  the  far  north  by  the 
Euphrates,  and  the  road  thence  to  the 
Chaldean  capital  lay  clear  of  the  desert 
altogether.  Moreover,  the  battle  of  Car- 
chemish was  fought  in  Jehoiakim's  fourth 
year,  and  therefore  after  Nebuchadnezzar's 
accession,  whereas  the  invasion  of  Judea  was 

^  Josephus,  Contra  Apion,  i.  19. 

B 


1 8  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

during  Nabopolassar's  lifetime,  and  therefore 
in  Jehoiakim's  third  year,  precisely  as  the 
Book  of  Daniel  avers/ 

It  only  remains  to  add  that  Scripture  no- 
where speaks  of  2.  general  "  deportation  "  in 
the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim.  Here,  as  else- 
where, the  critic  attributes  his  own  errors 
to  the  Bible,  and  then  proceeds  to  refute 
them.  The  narrative  is  explicit  that  on 
this  occasion  Nebuchadnezzar  returned  with 
no  captives  save  a  few  cadets  of  the  royal 
house  and  of  the  noble  families.  But  Dr. 
Farrar  writes:  ''Among  the  captives  were 
certain  of  the  king's  seed  and  of  the  princes." 
Nor  is  this  all :  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  They 
are  called  'children,'  and  the  word,  together 
with  the  context,  seems  to  imply  that  they 
were  boys  of  the  age  of  from  twelve  to  four- 
teen." What  Daniel  says  is  that  these,  the 
only  captives,  were  "skilful  in  all  wisdom,  and 

1  The  question  of  course  arises  how  this  battle  should 
have  been  fought  after  the  successful  campaign  of  the  pre- 
ceding year.  There  are  reasonable  explanations  of  this,  but 
I  offer  none.  Scripture  has  suffered  grievously  from  the 
eagerness  of  its  defenders  to  put  forward  hypotheses  to 
explain  seeming  difficulties. 


HISTORICAL   ERRORS    OF    DANIEL  1 9 

cunning  in  knowledge,  and  understanding 
science."  What  prodigies  those  Jewish 
boys  must  have  been !  The  word  trans- 
lated "  children "  in  the  A.V.  is  more  cor- 
rectly rendered  "youths"  in  the  R.V.  Its 
scope  may  be  inferred  from  the  use  of  it  in 
I  Kings  xii,  8,  which  tells  us  that  Reho- 
boam  "forsook  the  counsel  of  the  old  men, 
and  took  counsel  with  the  young  men  that 
were  grown  up  with  him."  This  last  point 
is  material  mainly  as  showing  the  animus 
of  the  critic.^ 

But  the  Scripture  speaks  of  King  Nebu- 
chadnezzar in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim, 
whereas  it  was  not  till  his  fourth  year  that 
Nabopolassar  died.  No  doubt.  And  a 
writer  of  Maccabean  days,  with  the  history 
of  Berosus  before  him,  would  probably  have 

^  The  only  reason  for  representing  Daniel  as  a  mere  boy 
of  twelve  or  fourteen  is  that  thereby  discredit  is  cast  upon 
the  statement  that  three  years  later  he  was  placed  at  the 
head  of  "  the  wise  men  "  of  Babylon.  It  is  with  a  real  sense 
of  distress  and  pain  that  I  find  myself  compelled  to  use  such 
language.  But  it  would  need  a  volume  to  expose  the  errors, 
misstatements,  and  perversions  of  which  the  above  are  typi- 
cal instances.  They  occur  in  every  chapter  of  Dr.  Farrar's 
book. 


20  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

noticed  the  point.  But  the  so-called  in- 
accuracy is  precisely  one  of  the  incidental 
proofs  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  the  work 
of  a  contemporary  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The 
historian  of  the  future  will  never  assert  that 
Queen  Victoria  lived  at  one  time  in  Ken- 
sington Palace,  though  the  statement  will 
be  found  in  the  newspapers  which  recorded 
the  unveiling  of  her  statue  in  Kensington 
Gardens. 

The  references  to  Jeremiah  raise  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  book  records  the  utterances 
of  an  inspired  prophet,  or  whether,  as  Dr. 
Farrar's  criticisms  assume,  the  author  of  the 
book  wrote  merely  as  a  religious  teacher.^ 
This  question,  however,  is  too  large  to  treat 
of  here  ;  and  the  discussion  of  it  is  wholly  un- 
necessary, for  the  careful  student  will  find  in 
Jeremiah  the  clearest  proof  that  Scripture  is 
right  and  the  critics  wrong.     The  objection 

'  The  careful  reader  of  Dr.  Farrar's  book  will  not  fail  to 
see  that  his  references  to  the  Scriptures  generally  imply 
that  the  prophecies  came  by  the  will  of  the  prophets  ; 
whereas  Holy  Scripture  declares  that  "  No  prophecy  ever 
came  by  the  will  of  man  ;  but  men  spake  from  God,  being 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  (2  Pet.  i.  20,  21). 


HISTORICAL    ERRORS    OF    DANIEL  2  1 

depends  on  confounding  the  seventy  years 
of  the  "Servitude  to  Babylon"  with  the 
seventy  years  of  "  the  Desolations  of  Jeru- 
salem"— another  of  the  numerous  blunders 
which  discredit  the  work  under  review/ 
"  The  Captivity,"  which  is  confounded  with 
both,  was  not  an  era  of  seventy  years  at  all. 
The  prophecy  of  the  twenty-fifth  chapter 
of  Jeremiah  was  a  warning  addressed  to  the 
people  who  remained  in  the  land  after  the 
servitude  had  begun,  that  if  they  continued 
impenitent  and  rebellious,  God  would  bring 
upon  them  a  further  judgment — the  terrible 
scourge  of  "the  Desolations."  The  pro- 
phecy of  the  twenty-ninth  chapter  was  a 
message  of  hope  to  the  Jews  of  the  Captivity. 
And  what  was  that  message?  That  "after 
seventy  years  be  accomplished  for  Babylon, 
I  will  visit  you,  and  perform  my  good  word 
toward  you,  in  causing  you  to  return  to  this 
place."  ^     And   that   promise  was  faithfully 

1  p.  289, 

2  Jer.  xxix.  10,  R.V.  The  word  \s  for  {noi  at)  Babylon. 
These  "  seventy  years  "  dated,  not  from  their  deportation  to 
Babylonia  as  captives,  but  from  their  subjection  to  the 
suzerainty  of  Babylon. 


22  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

fulfilled.  The  Servitude  began  in  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  b.c.  606.^  It  ended  in 
B.C.  536,  when  Cyrus  issued  his  decree  for 
the  return  of  the  exiles.  By  the  test  of 
chronology,  therefore  —  the  severest  test 
which  can  be  applied  to  historical  state- 
ments —  the  absolute  accuracy  of  these 
Scriptures  is  established.^ 

^  That  is,  the  year  beginning  with  Nisan,  B.C.  606,  and 
ending  with  Adar,  B.C.  605. 

2  Owing  to  the  importance  of  this  Jehoiakim  "error"  I 
have  added  an  excursus  upon  the  subject.  See  Appendix  I. 
p.  iSZ,post. 


CHAPTER  III 

HISTORICAL    ERRORS    CONTINUED  I     BEL- 
SHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE 

Professor  Driver  acknowledges  "  the  pos- 
sibility that  Nabunahid  may  have  sought 
to  strengthen  his  position  by  marrying  a 
daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  which  case 
the  latter  might  be  spoken  of  as  Belshazzar's 
father  (  =  grandfather,  by  Hebrew  usage)."  ^ 
And  the  author  of  the  Ancient  Monarchies^ 
our  best  historical  authority  here,  tells  us 
that  Nabonidus  (Nabunahid)  "  had  associated 
with  him  in  the  government  his  son  Belshazzar 
or  Bel-shar-uzur,  the  grandson  of  the  great 
Nebuchadnezzar,"  and  "  in  his  father's  ab- 
sence Belshazzar  took  the  direction  of  affairs 
within  the  city."^  The  only  question,  there- 
fore, is  whether  Belshazzar,  being  thus  left 
as  regent  at    Babylon  when  his  father  was 

^  Book  of  Daniel,  p.  li. 

^  Rawlinson's  Ancient  Monarchies^  vol.  iii.  p.  70. 

23 


24  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

absent  at  Borsippa  in  command  of  the  army, 
would  be  addressed  as  king.  But  Dr. 
Farrar  settles  the  matter  by  asserting  that 
"  there  was  no  King  Belshazzar,"  and  that 
Belshazzar  was  "conquered  in  Borsippa."^ 
This  last  statement  is  a  mere  blunder. 

The  accuracy  of  Daniel  in  this  matter  is 
confirmed  in  a  manner  which  is  all  the  more 
striking  because  it  is  wholly  incidental.  Why 
did  Belshazzar  purpose  to  make  Daniel  the 
third  ruler  in  the  kingdom  ?  The  natural 
explanation  is,  that  he  himself  was  but 
second. 

"  Unhappily  for  their  very  precarious  hypo- 
thesis," Dr.  Farrar  remarks,  "the  translation 
'  third  ruler  '  appears  to  be  entirely  untenable. 
It  means  *  one  of  a  board  of  three.'  "  ^  As 
a  test  of  the  author's  erudition  and  candour 
this  deserves  particular  notice.  Every  scholar, 
of  course,  is  aware  that  there  is  not  a  word 
about  a  "  board  of  three  "  in  the  text.  This 
is  exegesis,  not  translation.  But  is  it  correct 
exegesis  ? 

Under  the  Persian  rule  there  was  a  cabinet 

1  P.  54-  '  P-  57- 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE      2$ 

of  three,  as  the  sixth  chapter  tells  us ;  but 
there  is  no  authority  whatever  for  supposing 
such  a  body  existed  under  the  empire  which 
it  supplanted.  As  regards  chapter  v.,  it  will 
satisfy  most  people  to  know  that  the  render- 
ing which  Dr.  Farrar declares  to  be  "entirely 
untenable  "  has  been  adopted  by  the  Old  Tes- 
tament company  of  Revisers.  And  I  have 
been  at  the  pains  to  ascertain  that  the  pas- 
sage was  carefully  considered,  that  they  had 
no  difficulty  in  deciding  in  favour  of  the  read- 
ing of  the  A. v.,  and  that  it  was  not  until 
their  final  revision  that  the  alternative  ren- 
dering "one  of  three  "  was  admitted  into  the 
margin.  In  the  distinguished  Professor 
Kautzsch's  recent  work  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,^ representing  the  latest  and  best  Ger- 
man scholarship,  he  adheres  to  the  rendering 
**  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom,"  and  his  note  is, 
"either  as  one  of  three  over  the  whole  king- 
dom, or  as  third  by  the  side  of  the  king  and 
the  king's  mother."  Behrmann,  too,  in  his 
recent  commentary,  adopts  the  same  read- 
ing—  "as   third   he  was  to  have  authority 

^  Die  Heili^e  Schrift  des  Alien  Testaments. 


26  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

in  the  kingdom,"  and  adds  a  note  referring 
to  the  king  and  his  mother  as  first  and 
second.^ 

This  surely  will  suffice  to  silence  the 
critic's  objection,  and  to  cast  suspicion 
upon  his  fairness  as  a  controversialist.^ 

But,  we  are  told,  the  archaeological  dis- 
coveries of  the  last  few  years  dispose  of  the 
whole  question,  and  compel    us  entirely  to 

^  In  reply  to  an  inquiry  I  addressed  to  him,  the  Chief 
Rabbi  wrote  to  me  as  follows  :  "  I  have  carefully  considered 
the  question  you  laid  before  me  at  our  pleasant  meeting  on 
Sunday  relative  to  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  passages 
in  Daniel,  chapter  v.,  verses  7  and  16.  I  cannot  absolutely 
find  fault  with  Archdeacon  Farrar  for  translating  the  words 
'  the  third  part  of  the  kingdom,'  as  he  follows  herein  two  of 
our  Hebrew  commentators  of  great  repute,  Rashi  and  Ibn 
Ezra.  On  the  other  hand,  others  of  our  commentators,  such 
as  Saadia,  Jachja,  &c.,  translate  this  passage  as  '  he  shall  be 
the  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom.'  This  rendering  seems  to 
be  more  strictly  in  accord  with  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
words  as  shown  by  Dr.  Winer  in  his  Grammatik  des  Chal- 
daismus.  It  also  receives  confirmation  from  Sir  Henry 
Rawlinson's  remarkable  discovery,  according  to  which  Bel- 
shazzar  was  the  eldest  son  of  King  Nabonidus,  and  asso- 
ciated with  him  in  the  government,  so  that  the  person  next 
in  honour  would  be  the  third." 

2  This  applies  equally  to  Prof.  Driver's  note,  which  says 
"  The  rendering  of  A.V.  is  certainly  untenable."  And  his 
reference  to  the  LXX.  is  unfair,  seeing  that  his  view  is  refuted 
by  the  version  of  Theodotion,  which  is  of  higher  authority 
than  that  to  which  he  appeals. 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE      2/ 

reconstruct  the  traditional  history  of  the 
Persian  conquest  of  Babylon.  "We  now 
possess  the  actual  records  of  Nabonidos  and 
Cyrus,"  Professor  Sayce  tells  us,  and  he 
adds,  "They  are  records  the  truth  of  which 
cannot  be  doubted."^  What  "simple  child- 
like faith  "  these  good  men  have  in  ancient 
records.  Holy  Scripture  only  excepted  !  The 
principal  record  here  in  question  is  "the 
Annalistic  tablet  of  Cyrus,"  an  inscription  of 
which  the  transparent  design  is  to  represent 
his  conquest  of  Babylon  as  the  fulfilment  of 
a  divine  mission,  and  the  realisation  of  the 
wishes  of  the  conquered.  And  any  docu- 
ment of  the  kind,  whether  dated  in  the  sixth 
century  B.C.  or  the  nineteenth  century  a.d., 
is  open  to  grave  suspicion,  and  should  be 
received  with  caution.  Even  kings  may 
pervert  the  truth,  and  State-papers  may 
falsify  facts !  But  even  assuming  its  ac- 
curacy, it  in  no  way  supports  the  conclusions 
which  are  based  upon  it.  No  advance  will 
be  made  towards  a  solution  of  these  ques- 

1  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the   Verdict  of  the  Monu- 
ments, p.  498. 


2  8  DANIEL   IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

tions  until  our  Christian  scholars  shake 
themselves  free  from  the  baneful  influence 
of  the  sceptics,  whose  blind  hostility  to  Holy 
Scripture  unfits  them  for  dealing  with  any 
controversy  of  the  kind.  The  following  is 
a  typical  instance  of  the  effect  of  the  influ- 
ence I   deprecate  : — 

"  But  Belshazzar  never  became  king  in  his 
father's  place.  No  mention  is  made  of  him  at 
the  end  of  the  Annahstic  tablet,  and  it  would 
therefore  appear  that  he  was  no  longer  in  com- 
mand of  the  Babylonian  army  when  the  invasion 
of  Cyrus  took  place.  Owing  to  the  unfortunate 
lacuna  in  the  middle  of  the  tablet  we  have  no 
account  of  what  became  of  him,  but  since  we  are 
told  not  only  of  the  fate  of  Nabonidos,  but  also 
of  the  death  of  his  wife,  it  seems  probable  that 
Belshazzar  was  dead.  At  any  rate,  when  Cyrus 
entered  Babylonia  he  had  already  disappeared 
from  history.  Here,  then,  the  account  given  by 
the  Book  of  Daniel  is  at  variance  with  the  testi- 
mony of  the  inscriptions.  But  the  contradictions 
do  not  end  here.  The  Biblical  story  implies  that 
Babylon  was  taken  by  storm ;  at  all  events  it  ex- 
pressly states  that  '  the  king  of  the  Chaldeans  was 
slain.'  Nabonidos,  the  Babylonian  king,  however, 
was  not  slain,  and  Cyrus  entered  Babylon  *in 
peace.'     Nor  was  Belshazzar  the  son  of  Nebuchad- 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE      29 

rezzar,    as   we    are    repeatedly   told    in   the    fifth 
chapter  of  Daniel."  1 

May  I  criticise  the  critic  ?  Daniel  no- 
where avers  that  Belshazzar  became  king  in 
his  father's  place.  On  the  contrary,  it  clearly 
implies  that  he  reigned  as  his  father's  vice- 
roy. Daniel  nowhere  suggests  that  he  was 
in  command  of  the  Babylonian  army.  The 
Annalistic  tablet,  on  the  other  hand,  tells  us 
that  Nabonidus  was  at  the  head  of  the  army, 
and  that  he  was  at  Sippara  when  the  Persian 
invasion  took  place,  and  fled  when  that  town 

^  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Verdict  of  the  Monu- 
ments, pp.  525,  526.  This  last  point  is  typical  of  the 
inaccuracy  and  pertinacity  of  the  critics.  We  are  nowhere 
told  in  Daniel  that  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. We  are  told  that  he  was  so  addressed  at  the  Court 
of  Babylon,  which  is  a  wholly  different  matter.  He  was 
probably  a  descendant  of  the  great  king,  but  it  is  certain 
that  if,  rightly  or  wrongly,  he  claimed  relationship  with  him, 
no  one  at  his  court  would  dispute  the  claim.  In  a  table 
of  Babylonian  kings  I  find  mention  of  a  daughter  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  who  married  the  father  of  Nabonidus 
{Trajis.  Vict.  Inst.,  vol.  xviii.  p.  99).  This  of  course  would 
dispose  of  the  whole  difficulty.  She,  perhaps,  was  "the 
king's  mother,"  whose  death  eight  years  before  was  followed 
by  national  mourning  {Annal.  Tablet).  To  trade  on  the 
word  "  son  "  is  a  mere  quibble  ad  captandum  vulgus,  which 
has  been  exposed  again  and  again.  (See  Pusey's  Daniel, 
p.  405,  and  Rawlinson's  Egypt  and  Babylon,  p.  155.) 


30  DANIEL    IN    THE   CRITICS'    DEN 

opened  its  gates  to  the  invaders.  To  the 
fact  that  more  than  half  of  the  inscription  is 
lost  Professor  Sayce  attributes  the  absence 
of  all  mention  of  Belshazzar.  And  yet  he 
goes  on  to  assume,  without  a  shadow  of  evi- 
dence, that  he  had  died  before  the  date  of 
the  expedition  ;  and  upon  this  utterly  base- 
less conjecture  he  founds  the  equally  baseless 
assertion  that  "  Daniel  is  at  variance  with 
the  testimony  of  the  inscriptions  "  !  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  the  tablet  is  not 
silent  about  Belshazzar.  On  the  contrary,  it 
expressly  refers  to  him,  and  records  his  death. 
But  to  resume.  Daniel  nowhere  avers  that 
"  Babylon  was  taken  by  storm."  Neither  is 
it  said,  "the  king  of  the  Chaldeans  was 
slain " ;  the  words  are  explicit  that  "  Bel- 
shazzar, the  Chaldean  king,  was  slain." 
How  his  death  was  brought  about  we  are 
not  told.  He  may  have  fallen  in  repelling 
an  assault  upon  the  palace,  or  his  death 
may  have  been  caused  in  furtherance  of  the 
priestly  conspiracy  in  favour  of  Cyrus,  or 
the  "wise  men"  may  have  compassed  it  in 
revenge  for  the  preferment  of  Daniel. 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE      3 1 

All  this  is  mere  conjecture.  Scripture 
merely  tells  us  that  he  was  slain,  and  that 
Darius  the  Mede,  aged  about  sixty-two, 
''received  the  kingdom."  The  same  word 
occurs  again  in  ii.  6  ("Ye  shall  receive  of  me 
gifts,"  &c.),  and  in  vii.  i8  ("The  saints  of 
the  Most  High  shall  receive  the  kingdom"). 
No  word  could  more  fitly  describe  the  en- 
thronement of  a  vassal  king  or  viceroy.  No 
language  could  be  more  apt  to  record  a 
peaceful  change  of  dynasty,  such  as,  accord- 
ing to  some  of  the  students  of  the  inscrip- 
tions, took  place  when  Nabonidus  lost  the 
throne. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  and  the  sequel  may 
well  excite  the  reader's  astonishment.  First, 
we  are  asked  to  draw  inferences  from  the 
silence  of  this  document,  though  we  possess 
but  mutilated  fragments  of  it,  and,  for  ought 
we  know,  the  lost  portions  may  have  con- 
tained matter  to  refute  these  very  inferences. 
And  secondly,  accepting  the  contents  of  the 
fragments  which  remain,  the  allegation  that 
they  contradict  the  Book  of  Daniel  has  no 
better    foundation    than    Professor    Sayce's 


32  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

heretical  reading  of  them  ;  and  if  we  appeal 
to  a  more  trustworthy  guide,  we  shall  find 
that,  so  far  from  being  inconsistent  with  the 
sacred  narrative,  they  afford  the  most  striking 
confirmation  of  its  truth. 

According  to  this  tablet,  "  Sippara  was 
taken  without  fighting,  and  Nabonidus  fled." 
This  was  on  the  14th  day  of  Tammuz  ;  ^ 
and  on  the  i6th,  "Gobryas  and  the  soldiers 
of  Cyrus  entered  Babylon  without  fighting." 
On  the  3rd  day  of  Marchesvan,  that  is,  four 
months  later,"  Cyrus  himself  arrived.  Fol- 
lowing this  comes  the  significant  statement : 
"The  nth  day  of  Marchesvan,  during  the 
night,  Gobryas  was  on  the  bank  of  the  river. 
The  son  of  the  king  died'' ;  or,  as  Professor 
Driver  reads  it,  "  Gubaru  7nade  an  assault^ 
and  slew  the  kings  son.''^  Then  follows  the 
mention  of  the  national  mourning  and  of 
the  State  burial  conducted  by  Cambyses, 
the  son  of  Cyrus,  in  person.  But  instead  of 
"the  son  of  the  king,"  Professor  Sayce  here 
reads  "the  wife  of  the  king,"  and  upon  this 

^  June — July.  ^  October — November. 

•'  .See  p.  36,  post. 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE   MEDE      33 

error  rests  the  entire  superstructure  of  his 
attack  upon  the  accuracy  of  Daniel/ 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  main  statements  in 
the  tablet  may  reasonably  be  accepted.  We 
may  assume  that  the  Persian  troops  entered 
Sippara  on  the  14th  Tammuz,  and  reached 
Babylon  on  the  i6th.  But  the  assertion  that 
in  both  cases  the  entry  was  peaceful  will,  of 
course,  be  received  with  reserve.  Professor 
Sayce,  however,  would  have  us  believe  it  all 
implicitly,  and  he  goes  on  to  assert  that 
Cyrus  was  King  of  Babylon  from  the  14th 
Tammuz,  and  therefore  that  Daniel's  men- 
tion of  the  death  of  Belshazzar  and  the 
accession  of  Darius  the  Mede  is  purely 
mythical.  He  dismisses  to  a  footnote  the 
awkward  fact  that  we  have  commercial 
tablets  dated  in  the  reign  of  Nabonidus 
throughout  the  year,  and  even  after  the 
arrival  of  Cyrus  himself;  and  his  gloss  upon 
this  fact  is  that  it  gives  further  proof  that 
the  change  of  dynasty  was  a  peaceful  one ! 
It  gives  proof  clear  and  conclusive  that 
during  this  period  Nabonidus  was  still  recog- 

^  See  Appendix  II.,  p.  i6o, post. 


34  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

nised  as  king,  and  therefore  that  Cyrus  was 
not  yet  master  of  the  city.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  we  have  not  a  single  "Cyrus"  tablet  in 
this  year  dated  from  Babylon.  All,  with  one 
exception,  the  source  of  which  is  not  known, 
were  made  in  Sippara.^ 

But  who  was  this  personage  whose  death 
was  the  occasion  of  a  great  national  mourn- 
ing and  a  State  funeral  ?  As  the  context 
shows  clearly  that  "the  king"  referred  to 
was  not  Cyrus,  he  can  have  been  no  other 
than  Nabonidus  ;  and  as  "the  king's  son," 
so  frequently  mentioned  in  the  earlier  frag- 
ments of  the  inscription  and  in  the  contract 
tablets,  is  admittedly  Belshazzar,"  there  is 
no  reason  whatever  to  doubt  that  it  was 
he  whose  death  and  obsequies  are  here 
recorded. 

What  then  does  all  this  lead  us  to  ?  The 
careful  and  impartial  historian,  repudiating 
the  iconoclastic  zeal  of  the  controversialist, 
will  set  himself  to  consider  how  these  facts 
can  be  harmonised  with  other  records  sacred 

^  See  p.  \6i\,  post. 
^  Sayce,  p.  525. 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE       35 

and  profane  ;  and  the  task  will  not  prove  a 
difficult  one.  Accepting  the  fact  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Persian  invasion  Nabonidus  was 
absent  from  Babylon,  he  will  be  prepared  to 
find  that  "the  king's  son"  held  command  in 
the  capital  as  viceroy.  Accepting  the  fact 
that  the  Persian  army  entered  Babylon  in 
the  month  Tammuz,  and  that  Cyrus  arrived 
four  months  later,  but  yet  that  Nabonidus 
was  still  recognised  as  king,  he  will  explain 
the  seeming  paradox  by  inferring  that  the 
invaders  were  in  possession  only  of  a  part 
of  the  vast  city  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  that 
Belshazzar,  surrounded  by  his  court  and  the 
wealthy  classes  of  the  community,  still  re- 
fused to  yield.  Accepting  the  fact  that 
Cyrus  desired  to  represent  his  conquest 
as  a  bloodless  one,  he  will  be  prepared  to 
assume  that  force  was  resorted  to  only  after 
a  long  delay  and  when  diplomacy  was  ex- 
hausted. And  he  will  not  be  surprised  to 
find  that  when  at  last,  either  in  an  attack 
upon  the  palace,  or  by  some  act  of  treachery 
in  furtherance  of  the  cause  of  the  invaders, 
"  Belshazzar  the  Chaldean  king  was  slain," 


36  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*   DEN 

the  fact  was  veiled  by  the  euphemistic  an- 
nouncement that  "the  king's  son  died."^ 

But  while  the  record  is  thus  shown  to  be 
entirely  consistent  with  Daniel,  so  far  as  the 
mention  of  Belshazzar  is  concerned,  what 
room  does  it  leave  for  Darius  the  Mede? 
The  answer  is  that  the  inscription  fails  us  at 
this  precise  point.  "  The  rest  of  the  text  is 
destroyed,  but  the  fragments  of  it  which  re- 
main indicate  that  it  described  the  various 
attempts  made  by  Cyrus  and  his  son  Kam- 
byses,  after  the  overthrow  of  Nabonidus, 
to  settle  the  affairs  of  Babylonia  and  con- 
ciliate the  priesthood."  Such  is  Professor 
Sayce's  own   testimony.^     In   a  word,   it   is 

1  When  the  fall  of  the  Empire  scattered  the  Secret  Ser- 
vice staff  of  the  French  Prefecture  of  Police,  many  strange 
things  came  to  my  knowledge.  I  then  learned  that  Count 
D'Orsay's  death  was  caused  by  a  pistol-bullet  aimed  at  the 
Emperor,  with  whom  he  was  walking  arm-in-arm.  But  it 
was  publicly  announced,  and  universally  believed,  that  he 
died  of  a  carbuncle  in  the  back.  If,  even  in  these  days  of 
newspapers,  facts  can  be  thus  disguised  for  reasons  of  State, 
who  will  pretend  that  the  circumstances  of  Belshazzar's 
death  may  not  have  been  thus  concealed  in  Chaldea  twenty- 
five  centuries  ago  ?  Moreover,  Professor  Driver's  reading 
of  the  tablet  (see  p.  32,  ante)  renders  even  this  suggestion 
unnecessary. 

2  P.  503. 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE      37 

doubtful  whether  the  tablet  mentions  Darius 
or  not,  but  it  is  certain  that  any  such  men- 
tion would  be  purely  incidental,  and  wholly 
outside  the  purpose  with  which  the  inscrip- 
tion was  framed.  While  its  mention  of  him, 
therefore,  would  be  conclusive,  its  silence 
respecting  him  would  prove  nothing. 

Nor  will  the  omission  of  his  name  from 
the  commercial  tablets  decide  the  matter 
either  way.  If,  as  Daniel  indicates,  Darius 
was  but  a  viceroy  or  vassal  king,  his 
suzerain's  name  would,  in  the  ordinary 
course,  be  used  for  this  purpose,  just  as 
the  name  of  Nabonidus  was  used  during 
the  regency  of  Belshazzar. 

But  who  was  this  Darius  ?  Various 
hypotheses  are  maintained  by  scholars  of 
eminence.  By  some  he  is  identified  with 
Gobryas,  and  this  suggestion  commends 
itself  on  many  grounds.^     Others,  again,  fol- 

^  See  Appendix  II.,  post.  The  language  of  the  Cyrus 
inscription  is  very  striking,  as  indicating  that  Gobryas 
was  no  mere  subordinate  ;  e.g..,  "  Peace  to  the  city  did 
Cyrus  establish.  Peace  to  all  the  princes  of  Babylon  did 
Gobryas  his  governor  proclaim.  Governors  in  Babylon  he 
(Gobryas)  appointed." 


38  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

low  the  view  adopted  by  Josephus,  accord- 
ing to  which  Darius  was  "the  son  and 
successor  of  Astyages  " — namely,  Cyaxares 
II.  Xenophon  is  the  only  authority  for  the 
existence  of  such  a  king,  but  his  testimony 
has  been  rejected  too  lightly  on  the  plea 
that  his  CyropcBdia  is  but  a  romance.  The 
writers  of  historical  romances,  however,  do 
not  invent  king-s.  Yet  another  suofSfestion 
remains,  that  Darius  was  the  personal  name 
of  "  Astyages,"  the  last  king  of  the  Medes. 
"This,"  says  Bishop  Westcott,  "appears  to 
satisfy  all  the  conditions  of  the  problem."^ 

I  refuse  to  commit  myself  to  any  one  of 
these  rival  hypotheses.  My  task  is  merely 
to  show  that  the  question  is  still  open,  and 
that  the  grounds  on  which  it  is  now  sought 
to  prove  it  closed  are  such  as  would  satisfy 
no  one  who  is  competent  to  form  an  opinion 
upon  the  evidence.  Though  Professor  Driver 
here  remarks  that  "there  seems  to  be  no 
room  for  such  a  ruler,"  he  is  careful  to  add 

^  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  ist  ed.,  article  "  Darius." 
Dr.  Westcott  adds  :  "  The  name  Astyages  was  national  and 
not  personal,  and  Ahasuerus  represents  the  name  Cyaxares 
borne  by  the  father  of  Astyages." 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE       39 

that  the  circumstances  are  not  inconsistent 
with  either  his  existence  or  his  office,  "and  a 
cautious  criticism  will  not  build  too  much  on 
the  silence  of  the  inscriptions,  where  many 
certainly  remain  yet  to  be  brought  to  light."  ^ 
The  identity  of  Darius  the  Mede  is  one  of 
the  most  interesting  problems  in  the  Daniel 
controversy,  but  it  is  a  problem  which  still 
awaits  solution.  The  critics  do  not  dispose 
of  it  by  declaring  the  Book  of  Daniel  to  be 
a  "  pseud-epigraph "  of  Maccabean  days. 
Accepting  that  hypothesis  for  the  sake  of 
argument,  the  mention  of  Darius  remains  to 
be  accounted  for.  Some  writers  reject  it  as 
"pure  fiction";  others  denounce  it  as  a 
"sheer  blunder."  Though  these  are  wholly 
inconsistent  hypotheses.  Dr.  Farrar,  more  suo, 
adopts  both.  Both,  however,  are  alike  un- 
tenable ;  and  the  "  avowed  fiction "  theory 
may  be  dismissed  as  unworthy  of  notice. 
The  writer  would  have  had  no  possible 
motive    for   inventing   a   "  Darius,"    for  the 

^  The  Introductio7i,  &c.,  p.  469.  In  the  Addenda  note 
to  3rd  ed.,  Professor  Driver  seeks  to  quahfy  this,  misled 
by  Professor  Sayce's  argument.     But  see  pp.  33,  34,  ante. 


40  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

events  of  Daniel  vi.  might  just  as  well  have 
been  assigned  to  some  other  reign,  and  a 
figment  of  the  kind  would  have  marred  his 
book.     The  suggestion  is  preposterous. 

And  ex  hypothesi,  the  author  must  have 
been  a  man  of  extraordinary  genius  and  of 
great  erudition.  He  would  have  had  before 
him  historical  records  now  lost,  such  as  the 
history  of  Berosus.  He  would  have  had 
access  to  the  authorities  upon  which  the 
book  of  the  Antiquities  is  based ;  for  the 
student  of  Josephus  cannot  fail  to  see  that 
his  history  is  partly  derived  from  sources 
other  than  the  Book  of  Daniel.  And  be- 
sides all  this,  he  would  have  had  the  Book 
of  Ezra,  which  records  how  Darius  the 
Persian  issued  an  edict  to  give  effect  to  the 
decree  of  Cyrus  for  the  rebuilding  of  the 
Temple,  and  also  the  prophecies  of  Haggai 
and  Zechariah,  which  bring  this  fact  into 
still  greater  prominence.  It  may  safely  be 
averred,  therefore,  that  no  intelligent  school- 
boy, no  devout  peasant,  in  all  Judah  could 
have  been  guilty  of  a  blunder  so  gross  and 
stupid  as  that   which    is    attributed   to  this 


BELSHAZZAR    AND    DARIUS    THE    MEDE      4 1 

"holy  and  gifted  Jew,"  the  author  of  the 
most  famous  and  successful  literary  fraud  the 
world  has  ever  seen!  The  "sheer  blunder" 
theory  may  be  rejected  as  sheer  nonsense. 

Accepting,  then,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
the  pseud-epigraph  theory  of  Daniel,  the 
book  gives  proof  of  a  definite  and  well- 
established  historical  tradition  that  when 
Cyrus  conquered  Babylon,  "  Darius  the 
Mede  received  the  kingdom."  How,  then, 
is  that  tradition  to  be  accounted  for  ?  The 
question  demands  an  answer,  but  the  critics 
have  none  to  offer. 


CHAPTER  IV 

"philological  peculiarities":  the 
language  of  daniel 

"The  philological  peculiarities  of  the  book" 
constitute  the  next  oround  of  the  critic's 
attack  on  Daniel.  "The  Hebrew"  (he  de- 
clares) "is  pronounced  by  the  majority  of 
experts  to  be  of  a  later  character  than  the 
time  assumed  for  it."  The  Aramaic  also  is 
marked  by  idioms  of  a  later  period,  familiar 
to  the  Palestinian  Jews.^  And  not  only  are 
Persian  words  employed  in  the  book,  but  it 
contains  certain  Greek  words,  which,  it  is 
said,  could  not  have  been  in  use  in  Babylon 
during  the  exile. 

^  The  opening  passage  of  Daniel,  from  ch.  i.  i  to  ch.  ii.  3,  is 
written  in  the  sacred  Hebrew,  and  this  is  resumed  at  ch.  viii. 
I  and  continued  to  the  end.  The  intervening  portion,  from 
ch.  ii.  4  to  the  end  of  ch.  vii.,  is  written  in  Chaldee  or  Aramaic. 
Professor  Cheyne  accepts  a  suggestion  of  Lenormant's  that 
the  whole  book  was  written  in  Hebrew,  but  that  the  original 
of  ii.  14  to  vii.  was  lost  (Smith's  Bible  Did.,  art.  "Daniel"). 

42 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    DANIEL  43 

Here  is  Professor  Driver's  summary  of  the 
argument  under  this  head  : — 

"The  verdict  of  the  language  of  Daniel  is  thus 
clear.  The  Persian  words  presuppose  a  period 
after  the  Persian  Empire  had  been  well  established : 
the  Greek  words  demand,  the  Hebrew  supportSy  and 
the  Aramaic  permits^  a  date  after  the  conquest  of 
Palestine  by  Alexander  the  Great  (B.C.  332).  With 
our  present  knowledge,  this  is  as  much  as  the 
language  authorises  us  definitely  to  affirm."  ^ 

Now,  the  strength  of  this  case  depends  on 
one  point.  Any  number  of  argumentative 
presumptions  may  be  rebutted  by  opposing 
evidence ;  but  here,  it  is  alleged,  we  have 
proof  which  admits  of  no  answer  :  the  Greek 
words  in  Daniel  demand  a  date  which  de- 
stroys the  genuineness  of  the  book.  Will 
the  reader  believe  it  that  the  only  foundation 
for  this  is  the  presence  of  two  words  which 
are  alleged  to  be  Greek !  Dr.  Farrar  in- 
sists on  three,  but  one  of  these  (kitharos)  is 
practically  given  up.^ 

^  The  Introduciion,  p.  476,  and  The  Book  of  Daniel, 
p.  Ixiii. 

2  In  Bertholdt's  day  the  critics  counted  ten  Greek  words 
in  Daniel :  they  have  now  come  down  to  two.  Dr.  Pusey 
denies  that  there  are  any. 


44  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

The  story  was  lately  told  that  at  a  church 
bazaar  in  Lincoln,  held  under  episcopal 
patronage,  the  alarm  was  given  that  a  thief 
was  at  work,  and  two  of  the  visitors  had  lost 
their  purses.  In  the  excitement  which  fol- 
lowed, the  stolen  purses,  emptied  of  course 
of  their  contents,  were  found  in  the  bishop's 
pocket.  The  Higher  Criticism  would  have 
handed  him  over  to  the  police !  Do  the 
critics  understand  the  very  rudiments  of  the 
science  of  weighing  evidence  ?  The  presence 
of  the  stolen  purses  did  not  "  demand  "  the 
conviction  of  the  bishop.  Neither  should 
the  presence  of  the  Greek  words  decide  the 
fate  of  Daniel.  There  was  no  doubt,  more- 
over, as  to  the  identity  of  the  purses,  while 
Dr.  Pusey  and  others  dispute  the  derivation 
of  the  words.  But  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other  the  question  would  remain.  How  did 
they  come  to  be  where  they  were  found  ? 

The  Talmud  declares  that,  in  common 
with  some  other  parts  of  the  canon,  Daniel 
was  edited  by  the  men  of  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue— a  college  which  is  supposed  to  have 
been  founded  by  Nehemiah,  and  which  con- 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    DANIEL  45 

tinued  until  it  gave  place  to  the  Great  San- 
hedrim. May  not  this  be  the  explanation  of 
all  these  philological  difficulties  ?  This  is  not 
to  have  recourse  to  a  baseless  conjecture  in 
order  to  evade  well-founded  objections  :  it  is 
merely  to  give  due  weight  to  an  authori- 
tative tradition,  the  very  existence  of  which 
\s  prima  facie  proof  of  its  truth.  ^ 

It  may  be  added  that  in  view  of  recent 
discoveries     no    competent     scholar    would 

^  The  attempt  to  explain  in  this  way  difficulties  of  another 
kind  is  to  force  the  hypothesis  unduly.  But  assuming,  what 
there  is  no  reason  whatever  to  doubt,  that  such  a  revision 
took  place,  we  should  expect  to  find  that  familiar  idioms 
would  be  substituted  for  others  that  were  deemed  archaic, 
that  familiar  words  would  be  substituted  for  terms  which 
then  seemed  strange  or  uncouth  to  the  Jews  of  Palestine, 
and  that  names  like  Nebuchadrezzar  would  be  altered  to 
suit  the  then  received  orthography.  And  the  "  immense  ana- 
chronism," if  such  it  were,  of  using  the  word  "  Chaldeans  " 
as  synonymous  with  the  caste  of  wise  men  is  thus  simply 
and  fully  explained. 

As  regards  the  name  Nebuchadnezzar,  it  is  hard  to  re- 
press a  feeling  of  indignation  against  the  dishonesty  of  the 
critics.  They  plainly  imply  that  this  spelling  is  peculiar  to 
Daniel.  The  fact  is  that  the  name  occurs  in  nine  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  all  of  them,  with  the 
single  exception  of  Ezekiel,  it  appears  in  this  form.  In 
Jeremiah  it  is  spelt  in  both  ways,  proving  clearly  that  the 
now  received  orthography  was  in  use  when  the  Book  of 
Daniel  was  written,  or  else  that  the  spelling  of  the  name 
throughout  the  sacred  books  is  entirely  a  matter  of  editing. 


46  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

now  reproduce  without  reserve  the  argu- 
ment based  on  the  presence  of  foreign 
words  in  the  book.  The  fact  is,  the  evolu- 
tion theory  has  thrown  its  shadow  across 
this  controversy.  The  extraordinary  conceit 
which  marks  our  much-vaunted  age  has 
hitherto  led  us  to  assume  that,  in  what  has 
been  regarded  as  a  prehistoric  period,  men 
were  slowly  emerging  from  barbarism,  that 
written  records  were  wanting,  and  that  there 
was  no  interchanore  amonpf  nations  in  the 
sphere  either  of  scholarship  or  of  trade.  It 
is  now  known,  however,  that  at  even  a  far 
earlier  period  the  nations  bordering  upon  the 
Mediterranean  possessed  a  literature  and  en- 
joyed a  civilisation  of  no  mean  excellence. 
Merchants  and  philosophers  travelled  freely 
from  land  to  land,^  carrying  with  them  their 

^  May  not  all  that  is  truest  and  best  in  Buddhism  be  thus 
traced  to  the  great  prophet-prince  of  the  exile  ?  Gautama 
was  a  contemporary  of  Daniel.  And  when  he  set  out  upon 
his  long  pilgrimage  in  search  of  truth  and  light,  may  he  not 
have  found  his  way  to  Babylon,  then  the  most  famous  centre 
both  of  civilisation  and  of  religion.  And  visiting  the  broad- 
walled  city,  he  could  not  fail  to  come  under  the  influence  of 
Daniel.  Daniel  was  born  about  B.C.  624  ;  and,  according 
to  Sir  E.  Arnold  {Light  of  Asia,  Preface),  Gautama  was  born 
about  B.C.  620. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    DANIEL  47 

wares  and  their  learning ;  and  to  appeal  to 
the  Greek  words  in  Daniel  as  proof  that  the 
book  was  written  after  the  date  of  Alex- 
ander's conquests,  no  longer  savours  of 
scholarship.  According  to  Professor  Sayce, 
"there  were  Greek  colonies  on  the  coast  of 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  " — a  cen- 
tury before  Daniel  was  born;  "and  they 
already  enjoyed  so  much  power  there  that  a 
Greek  usurper  was  made  King  of  Ashdod. 
The  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets  have  enabled 
us  to  carry  back  a  contract  between  Greece 
and  Canaan  to  a  still  earlier  period."^  In- 
deed he  goes  on  to  indicate  the  possibility 
"  that  there  was  intercourse  and  contact  be- 
tween the  Canaanites  or  Hebrews  in  Pales- 
tine and  the  Greeks  of  the  ^gean  as  far 
back  as  the  age  of  Moses." 

But  this  is  not  all.  Will  the  reader 
believe  it,  I  ask  again  with  increasing 
emphasis  and  indignation,  that  the  Greek 
words,  the  presence  of  which  is  held  to 
"demand"  the  rejection  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel,    are    merely    the    names    of  musical 

^  The  Higlier  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  pp.  494,  495. 


48  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

instruments  ?  If  the  instruments  themselves 
came  from  Greece  it  might  be  assumed  that 
they  would  carry  with  them  to  Babylon  the 
names  by  which  they  were  known  in  the 
land  of  their  origin.  In  no  other  sphere 
would  men  listen  to  what  passes  for  proof 
when  Scripture  is  assailed.  In  no  other 
sphere  would  such  trifling  be  tolerated. 
What  would  be  thought  of  a  tribunal  which 
convicted  a  notorious  thief  of  petty  larceny 
on  such  evidence  as  this  ? 

The  Persian  words  are  of  still  less  account. 
That  the  Persian  language  was  unknown 
among  the  cultured  classes  in  Babylon  is 
incredible.  That  it  was  widely  known  is 
suggested  by  the  ease  with  which  the  Per- 
sian rule  was  accepted.  The  position  which 
Daniel  attained  under  that  rule  renders  it 
probable  in  the  extreme  that  he  himself 
was  a  Persian  scholar.  And  the  date  of 
his  closino-  vision  makes  it  certain  that  his 
book  was  compiled  after  that  rule  was 
established. 

But,  it  will  be  answered,  the  philological 
argument   does    not    rest   upon   points   like 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    DANIEL  49 

these ;  its  strength  lies  in  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  language  in  which  the  book 
is  written.  The  question  here  raised,  as 
Dr.  Farrar  justly  says,  "involves  delicate 
problems  on  which  an  independent  and 
a  valuable  opinion  can  only  be  offered"  by 
scholars  of  a  certain  class  and  very  few  in 
number.^ 

But  the  student  will  find  that  their  deci- 
sion is  by  no  means  unanimous  or  clear. 
And  of  course  their  dicta  must  be  considered 
in  connection  with  evidence  of  other  kinds 
which  it  is  beyond  their  province  to  deal 
with.  Dr.  Pusey's  magnificent  work,  in  which 
the  whole  subject  is  handled  with  the  great- 
est erudition  and  care,  is  not  dismissed  by 
others  with  the  contempt  which  Dr.  Farrar 
evinces  for  a  man  who  is  fired  by  the  enthu- 
siasm of  faith  in  the  Bible.  In  his  judgment 
the  Hebrew  of  Daniel  is  "just  what  one 
should  expect  at  the  age  at  which  he  lived."  ^ 

^  Dr.  Farrar's  words  are,  "by  the  merest  handful  of  living 
scholars"  (p.  17).  How  many  scholars  make  a  "handful" 
he  does  not  tell  us,  and  of  the  two  he  proceeds  to  appeal  to, 
one  is  not  living  but  dead  ! 

*  Pusey,  p.  578. 

D 


50  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

And  one  of  the  highest  living  authorities,  who 
has  been  quoted  in  this  controversy  as  favour- 
ing a  late  date  for  the  Book  of  Daniel,  writes 
in  reply  to  an  inquiry  I  have  addressed  to 
him  :  "  I  am  now  of  opinion  that  it  is  a  very 
difficult  task  to  settle  the  age  of  any  portion 
of  that  book  from  its  language."  This  is 
also  the  opinion  of  Professor  Cheyne,  a 
thoroughly  hostile  witness.  His  words  are  : 
"  From  the  Hebrew  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 
no  important  inference  as  to  its  date  can  be 
safely  drawn."  ^ 

And,  lastly,  appeal  may  be  made  to  Dr. 
Farrar  himself,  who  remarks  with  signal 
fairness,  but  with  strange  inconsistency,  that 
"  Perhaps  nothing  certain  can  be  inferred 
from  the  philological  examination  either  of 
the  Hebrew  or  of  the  Chaldee  portions  of 
the  book."  ^  And  again,  still  more  definitely, 
he  declares  :  "  The  character  of  the  language 
proves  nothing."  ^  This  testimony,  carrying 
as  it  does  the  exceptional  weight  which 
attaches  to  the   admissions  of  a  prejudiced 

^  Ency.  Brit.,  art.  "  Daniel,"  p.  804. 
2  P.  17.  3  p,  39. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    DANIEL  5 1 

and  hostile  witness,  might  be  accepted  as 
decisive  of  the  whole  question.  And  the 
fact  being  what  is  here  stated,  the  stress 
laid  on  grounds  thus  admitted  to  be  faulty 
and  inconclusive  is  proof  only  of  a  deter- 
mination by  fair  means  or  foul  to  discredit 
the  Book  of  Daniel. 

In  his  History  of  the  Criminal  Law,  Sir 
James  Fitzjames  Stephen  declares  that,  as 
no  kind  of  evidence  more  demands  the 
test  of  cross-examination  than  that  of  ex- 
perts, their  proper  place  is  the  witness 
chair  and  not  the  judgment  seat.  There- 
fore when  Professor  Driver  announces  "the 
verdict  of  the  language  of  Daniel,"  he 
goes  entirely  outside  his  proper  province. 
The  opinions  of  the  philologist  are  entitled 
to  the  highest  respect,  but  the  "  verdict " 
rests  with  those  who  have  practical  ac- 
quaintance with  the  science  of  evidence. 

Before  turning  away  from  this  part  of 
the  subject,  it  may  be  well  to  appeal  to 
yet  another  witness,  and  he  shall  be  one 
whose  competency  Dr.  Farrar  acknowledges, 
and  none  will  question.     His  words,  more- 


52  DANIEL    IN    THE   CRITICS*   DEN 

over,  have  an  interest  and  value  far  beyond 
the  present  controversy,  and  deserve  most 
careful  consideration  by  all  who  have  been 
stumbled  or  misled  by  the  arrogant  dog- 
matism of  the  so-called  Higher  Critics.  The 
following  quotation  is  from  An  Essay  on  the 
Place  of  Ecclesiasticus  in  Semitic  Literature 
by  Professor  Margoliouth  :  ^ — 

"  My  lamented  colleague,  Dr.  Edersheim,  and  I, 
misled  by  the  very  late  date  assigned  by  eminent 
scholars  to  the  books  of  the  Bible,  had  worked 
under  the  tacit  assumption  that  the  language  of 
Ben  -  Sira  was  the  language  of  the  Prophets ; 
whereas  in  reality  he  wrote  the  language  of  the 
Rabbis  "  (p.  6). 

It  should  be  explained  that  the  Proverbs 
of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  have  come  down 
to  us  in  a  Greek  translation,  but  the 
character  of  that  translation  is  such  that  the 
reconstruction  of  the  original  Hebrew  text 
is  a  task  within  the  capacity  of  competent 
scholarship,  and  a  preface  to  that  translation 
fixes  the  date  of  the  book  as  not  later  than 
about  B.C.  200.     But  to  resume  : — 

'  Clarendon  Press,  1890. 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    DANIEL  53 

"  If  by  200  B.C.  the  whole  Rabbinic  farrago, 
with  its  terms  and  phrases  and  idioms  and  par- 
ticles, was  developed,  .  .  .  then  between  Ben-Sira 
and  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  there  must  lie 
centuries — nay,  there  must  lie,  in  most  cases,  the 
deep  waters  of  the  Captivity,  the  grave  of  the  old- 
Hebrew  and  the  old  Israel,  and  the  womb  of  the 
new-Hebrew  and  the  new  Israel.  If  Hebrew,  like 
any  other  language,  has  a  history,  then  Isaiah  (first 
or  second)  must  be  separated  from  Ecclesiastes  by 
a  gulf;  but  a  yet  greater  gulf  must  yawn  between 
Ecclesiastes  and  Ecclesiaticus,  for  in  the  interval 
a  whole  dictionary  has  been  invented  of  philoso- 
phical terms  such  as  we  traced  above,  of  logical 
phrases,  .  .  .  legal  expressions,  .  .  .  nor  have  the 
structure  and  grammar  of  the  language  experi- 
enced less  serious  alteration.  ...  It  may  be,  if 
ever  Ben-Sira  is  properly  restored,  .  .  .  that  while 
some  students  are  engaged  in  bringing  down  the 
date  of  every  chapter  in  the  Bible  so  late  as  to 
leave  no  room  for  prophecy  and  revelation,  others 
will  endeavour  to  find  out  how  early  the  professedly 
post-exilian  books  can  be  put  back,  so  as  to  ac- 
count for  the  divergence  between  their  awkward 
middle-Hebrew  and  the  rich  and  eloquent  new- 
Hebrew  of  Ben-Sira.  However  this  may  be,  hypo- 
theses which  place  any  portion  of  the  classical  or 
old-Hebrew  Scriptures  between  the  middle-Hebrew 
of  Nehemiah  and  the  new-Hebrew  of  Ben-Sira  will 
surely   require   some   reconsideration,   or    at   least 


54  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

have  to  be  harmonised  in  some  way  with  the  history 
of  the  language,  before  they  can  be  unconditionally 
accepted." 

These  weighty  words  have  received  strik- 
ing confirmation  by  the  recent  discovery  of 
the  "  Cairene  Ecclesiasticus,"  a  Hebrew  MS. 
the  genuineness  of  which  is  maintained  by 
most  of  the  critics,  though  others  regard  it  as 
merely  an  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  original 
of  Ben-Sira.  According  to  Dr.  Schechter, 
who  has  edited  the  document  for  the 
University  of  Cambridge,  an  examination 
of  the  language  establishes  "the  conclusion 
that  at  the  period  in  which  B,-S.  composed 
his  'Wisdom'  classical  Hebrew  was  already 
a  thing  of  the  past,  the  real  language  of  the 
period  being  that  Hebrew  idiom  which  we 
know  from  the  Mishnah  and  cognate  Rab- 
binic literature."  And  again,  after  freely 
quoting  from  Ben-Sira:  "These  specimens 
are  enough  to  show  that  in  the  times  of  B.-S. 
the  new-Hebrew  dialect  had  long  advanced 
beyond  the  transitory  stage  known  to  us 
from  the  later  Biblical  books,  and  had  already 
reached,  both  in  respect  of  grammar  and  of 


THE    LANGUAGE    OF    DANIEL  SS 

phraseology,  that  degree  of  development  to 
which  the  Mishnah  bears  testimony. 


"  1 


1  T/ie  Wisdom  of  Ben-Sira,  S^c,  by  S.  Schechter,  M.A., 
Litt.D.,  &c.,  and  C.  Taylor,  D.D.,  Master  of  St.  John's  Col- 
lege, Cambridge  (Cambridge  University  Press,  1899).  As 
Professor  Driver  and  his  school  have  unreservedly  accepted 
this  MS.,  it  is  not  open  to  them  to  plead  that  its  genuineness 
is  doubtful.  And  if  Professor  Margoliouth's  judgment 
should  ultimately  prevail  that  it  is  a  forgery  of  late  date — 
the  tenth  or  eleventh  century — it  would  be  still,  as  an 
attempt  to  reconstruct  the  Hebrew  original,  a  notable  con- 
firmation of  the  views  and  opinions  above  cited. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE    POSITIVE    EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR 
OF    DANIEL 

The  critics  claim  a  competency  to  judge 
whether  this  portion  or  that  of  the  canon 
of  Scripture  be  divinely  inspired,  and  in  the 
exercise  of  this  faculty  they  have  decided 
that  certain  passages  of  Daniel  give  proof 
that  the  book  could  not  have  a  divine 
sanction.  Their  dicta  on  this  subject  will 
have  weight  with  us  just  in  proportion  to  our 
ignorance  of  Scripture.  The  opening  chap- 
ters of  the  book  which  follows  Daniel  in  the 
canon  present  far  greater  difficulties  in  this 
respect,  and  yet  the  prophetic  character  of 
Hosea  is  unquestionable.  Other  Scriptures 
also  might  be  cited  to  point  the  same  moral ; 
but  as  these  pretensions  of  the  critics  are 
not  accepted  by  Christians  generally,  the 
matter  need  not  be  further  discussed. 

Still    more    summarily    we    may    dismiss 

56 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR    OF    DANIEL  S7 

Dean  Farrar's  argument  from  the  absence 
of  references  to  Daniel  in  the  apocryphal 
literature  of  the  Jews.  Indeed,  he  himself 
supplies  the  answer  to  it,  for  when  he  ap- 
proaches the  subject  from  another  standpoint 
he  emphasises  the  influence  which  the  book 
exercised  upon  that  very  literature/  And 
as  for  the  silence  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach, 
the  argument  only  serves  to  indicate  the 
dearth  of  weightier  proofs.  The  reader  can 
turn  to  the  passage  referred  to'^  and  decide 
the  matter  for  himself.  If  an  omission  from 
this  panegyric  of  "  famous  men  "  proves  any- 
thing, Ezra  and  the  book  which  bears  his 
name  must  also  be  rejected. 

The  next  point  claims  fuller  notice.  Daniel 
was  admittedly  received  into  the  canon  ;  but, 
we  are  told,  "it  is  relegated  to  the  Kethuvim, 

^  "The  book  is  in  all  respects  unique,  a  writing  sui 
generis;  for  the  many  imitations  to  which  it  led  are  but 
imitations"  (p.  37).  This  is  but  one  of  numerous  instances 
in  which  Dr.  Farrar  affords  on  one  page  a  refutation  of 
objections  stated  upon  another. 

2  Ecclesiasticus,  xlviii.  20-xlix.  10.  On  this  point  see 
Professor  Margoliouth's  Lines  of  Defence  of  the  Biblical 
Revelation,  pp.  177,  178,  305.  It  is  there  established  that 
the  Book  of  Daniel  was  known  to  Ben-Sira,  and  the  whole 
pseud-epigraph  theory  is  thus  exploded. 


58  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

side  by  side  with  such  a  book  as  Esther." 
The  answer  to  this  is  complete.  In  the 
Jewish  canon  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
were  reckoned  as  twenty-four  books.  These 
were  classified  as  the  Torah,  the  Neveeim^ 
and  the  Kethuvim — the  Law,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Other  Writings.  Now,  the  objection 
implies  that  the  Neveeim  embraced  all  that 
was  regarded  as  prophecy,  and  nothing  else ; 
and  that  the  contents  of  the  Kethuvhn  were 
deemed  inferior  to  the  rest  of  the  canon. 
Both  these  implications  are  false.  In  the 
former  class  are  placed  the  books  of  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings.  And  the  latter 
included  two  books  at  least,  than  which  no 
part  of  the  Scriptures  was  more  highly 
esteemed, — the  Psalms,  associated  so  in- 
separably with  the  name  of  King  David  ; 
and  Esther,  which,  pace  the  sneer  of  the 
critic,  was  held  in  exceptional  honour.  Dr. 
Driver  avers  that  it  came  to  be  "ranked  by 
the  Jews  as  superior  both  to  the  writings  of 
the  prophets  and  to  all  other  parts  of  the 
Hagiographa."^      The    Psalms   headed    the 

^  Introduction,  p.  452. 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR   OF    DANIEL  59 

list.  Then  came  Proverbs,  connected  with 
the  name  of  Solomon.  Then  Job,  one  of 
the  oldest  of  the  books.  Then  followed 
the  five  Megilloth  (Song  of  Songs,  Ruth, 
Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Esther). 
And  finally  Daniel,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
and  Chronicles.  To  have  placed  Daniel 
before  the  Megilloth  would  have  separated 
it  from  the  books  with  which  it  was  so  im- 
mediately associated.  In  a  word,  its  place 
in  the  list  is  normal  and  natural.^ 

The  Book  of  Psalms,  as  already  men- 
tioned, stood  first  in  the  Kethuvim,  and  in 
later  times  gave  it  its  name ;  for  when  our 
Lord  spoke  of  "the  Law  of  Moses,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,"  he  thereby 
meant  **all  the  Scriptures."^  Many  of  the 
Psalms  were  rightly  deemed  prophetic ;  but 
though  David  was  a  prophet  in  the  highest 
sense,  it  was  not  as  prophet  but  as  king  that 
his  name  was  enshrined  in  the  memory  of 
the  people,  and  the  book  thus  naturally 
found  its  place  in  the  third  division  of  the 

^  But  see  p.  60,  post. 
^  Luke  xxiv.  27,  44. 


6o  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

canon.  For  the  books  were  grouped  rather 
by  authorship  than  by  the  character  of  their 
contents.  Precisely  the  same  reason  existed 
for  placing  Daniel  where  it  stood ;  for  it 
was  not  till  the  end  of  a  long  life  spent  in 
statecraft  that  the  visions  were  accorded  to 
the  Exile. 

But  this  is  not  all.  As  Dr.  Farrar  urges, 
though  he  is  obviously  blind  to  its  signi- 
ficance, Daniel  had  no  claim  to  the  prophet's 
mantle.  The  prophets  "spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost:"  he  merely 
recorded  the  words  addressed  to  him  by 
the  angel,  and  described  the  visions  he 
witnessed.  And  the  question  here,  be  it 
remembered,  is  not  what  weight  would  be 
given  to  this  distinction  by  our  modern 
critics,  but  how  it  would  influence  the  minds 
of  the  men  who  settled  the  canon.  I  am 
here  assuming  that  the  place  which  the 
Book  of  Daniel  now  holds  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible  is  that  which  was  originally  assigned 
to  it.  But  this  is  by  no  means  certain. 
There  are  definite  reasons  to  suspect  that 
it  was  the  Talmudists  who  removed  it  from 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR    OF    DANIEL  6 1 

the  position  it  occupies  in  the  LXX.  version 
and  in  our  English  Bible,  and  relegated  it  to 
the  third  division  of  the  canon/ 

And  now  it  is  high  time  to  raise  a  ques- 
tion which  the  critic  systematically  ignores, 
a  question  which  possibly  he  is  incompetent 
to  deal  with.  For  the  Higher  Criticism 
claims  an  entirely  false  position  in  this  con- 
troversy. The  critic  is  a  specialist ;  and 
specialists,  though  often  necessary  witnesses, 
are  proverbially  bad  judges.  To  some  men, 
moreover,  every  year  that  passes  brings 
more  experience  in  the  art  of  weighing  evi- 
dence than  the  theologian  or  the  pundit 
would  be  likely  to  acquire  in  a  lifetime. 
And  such  men  are  familiar  with  cases  where 
a  mass  of  seemingly  invincible  proof  seems 
to  point  one  way,  and  yet  fuller  inquiry 
establishes  that  the  truth  lies  in  a  wholly 
opposite  direction.  But  the  caution  which 
such  experience  begets  is  not  to  be  looked 
for  in  the  critic.  And  as  for  Dr.  Farrar,  his 
book   reminds  us    of  a  private  prosecution 

^  On     this     subject    see    Kitto's    Encyclopedia^    article 
"  Canon,"  by  the  learned  editor  of  that  work. 


62  DANIEL   IN    THE   CRITICS'    DEN 

conducted  by  that  type  of  lawyer  whose 
remuneration  is  proportionate  to  the  vehe- 
mence with  which  he  presses  every  point 
against  the  defendant.  It  never  seems  to 
have  crossed  his  mind  that  there  may  pos- 
sibly be  two  sides  to  the  question.  Here, 
then,  we  have  everything  which  can  possibly 
be  urged  against  the  Book  of  Daniel :  the 
inquiry  remains,  What  further  can  be  said 
in  its  defence?  Let  us  call  a  few  of  the 
witnesses. 

First  comes  the  mention  of  Daniel,  three 
times  repeated,  in  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel 
(xiv.  14,  20,  and  xxviii.  3).  The  critics 
urge  that  a  man  so  famous  as  the  Daniel 
of  the  Exile  is  represented  to  have  been  in 
the  book  which  bears  his  name,  would  have 
filled  a  large  place  in  the  literature  of  the 
nation,  and  they  appeal  to  the  silence  of  that 
literature  in  proof  that  no  such  personage 
in  fact  existed.  And  yet  when  the  testimony 
of  Ezekiel  is  cited,  they  declare  that  there 
must  have  been  another  Daniel  of  equal  if 
not  greater  fame,  who  flourished  at  some 
earlier  epoch  of  their  history,  albeit  not  even 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR   OF    DANIEL  63 

the  vaguest  tradition  of  his  existence  has 
survived !  Such  casuistry  is  hard  to  deal 
with. 

But  here  Dr.  Farrar  is  rash  enough  to 
leave  the  path  so  well  worn  by  the  feet  of 
those  he  follows,  and  to  venture  upon  a  piece 
of  independent  criticism.  He  fixes  B.C.  606 
as  the  date  of  Daniel's  captivity,  and  twelve 
years  as  his  age  when  carried  to  Babylon ; 
and  he  adds  : — 

"If  Ezekiel's  prophecy  was  uttered  B.C.  584, 
Daniel  at  that  time  could  only  have  been  twenty- 
two:  if  it  was  uttered  as  late  as  B.C.  572,  Daniel 
would  still  have  been  only  thirty-four,  and  there- 
fore little  more  than  a  youth  in  Jewish  eyes.  It  is 
undoubtedly  surprising  that  among  Orientals,  who 
regard  age  as  the  chief  passport  to  wisdom,  a 
living  youth  should  be  thus  canonised  between 
the  Patriarch  of  the  Deluge  and  the  Prince  of 
Uz."i 

The  author's  words  have  been  given  ver- 
batim^ lest  some  one  'should  charitably  sup- 
pose they  have  been  misrepresented.  For 
the  reader  will  perceive  that  this  pretentious 
argument   has    no  better  foundation  than  a 

1  P.  10. 


64  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

transparent  blunder  in  simple  arithmetic.^ 
According  to  his  own  showing,  Daniel  was 
upwards  of  thirty-four,^  and  he  may  have 
been  forty-six,  when  Ezekiel's  prophecy  was 
uttered.  And  setting  aside  the  absurd  fig- 
ment that  Daniel  was  but  a  child  of  twelve 
when  deported  to  Babylon,^  his  age  at  the 
date  of  the  prophecy  must,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  have  been  forty  at  the  least,  or  "  if  it 
was  uttered  as  late  as  B.C.  572,"  he  must 
have  already  reached  middle  age.  In  either 
case  he  had  already  attained  the  prime  of 
his  powers  and  the  zenith  of  his  fame. 

What,  then,  are  the  facts  ?  We  have 
Daniel  in  a  position  of  dazzling  splendour 
and  influence  at  the  Court  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, second  only  to  that  of  the  great 
king  himself.      His  power  and    fame,  great 

^  Any  schoolboy  can  see  that  from  B.C.  606  to  B.C.  584  was 
twenty-two  years,  and  if  Daniel  was  twelve  in  B.C.  606,  his 
age  in  B.C.  584  was  not  twenty-two,  but  thirty-four.  Or  if 
B.C.  572  was  the  date  of  the  prophecy,  his  age  when  it  was 
uttered  was  forty-six. 

2  At  34  years  of  age  Napoleon  became  Emperor,  and  the 
foremost  figure  in  Europe.  At  ^2,  Alexander  died,  having 
already  conquered  the  world. 

^  Pp.  18,  19,  an/e.  If  his  age  at  the  time  was  eighteen, 
he  died  at  eighty-eight. 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR    OF    DANIEL  65 

though  they  were,  cannot  fail  to  have 
loomed  ereater  still  in  the  estimate  of  the 
humbler  exiles  by  the  river  Chebar,  among 
whom  Ezekiel  lived  and  prophesied. 
Neither  "  the  Patriarch  of  the  Deluge " 
nor  "the  Prince  of  Uz"  would  have  held 
as  large  a  place  in  the  heart  or  in  the 
imagination  of  the  people.  The  name  of 
their  great  patron  must  have  been  on  every 
lip.  His  power  was  their  security  against 
oppression.  His  influence  doubtless  fired 
their  hopes  of  a  return  to  the  land  of  their 
fathers. 

Nor  was  this  all.  The  college  of  the 
Chaldean  Magi  was  famous  the  wide  world 
over ;  and  for  more  than  twenty  years 
Daniel  had  been  "chief  of  the  wise  men," 
and  thus,  in  wisdom  as  well  as  in  statecraft, 
the  foremost  figure  of  the  Court  of  Babylon. 
Among  Orientals,  and  especially  among  his 
own  people,  the  record  of  the  event  which 
gained  him  that  position,  and  of  his  triumphs 
of  administration  as  Grand  Vizier,  would 
have  lost  nothing  in  the  telling.  And 
though  his   piety   was    intense   and    wholly 

E 


66  DANIEL    IN    THE   CRITICS'    DEN 

phenomenal,   his  reputation   in  this   respect 
also  could  not  fail  to  be  exaggerated. 

Such,  then;  was  the  time  and  such  the 
circumstances  of  Ezekiel's  prophecy — words 
of  scorn  addressed  to  one  of  the  great  ene- 
mies of  their  race :  "  Behold  thou  art  wiser 
than  Daniel,  there  is  no  secret  that  they  can 
hide  from  thee  ; "  or  words  of  denunciation 
of  the  wickedness  which  brought  such  judg- 
ments upon  Jerusalem  :  "  Though  these  three 
men,  Noah,  Daniel,  and  Job,  were  in  it, 
they  should  deliver  but  their  own  souls  by 
their  righteousness." 

The  refusal  therefore  to  accept  the  testi- 
mony of  Ezekiel  as  evidence  to  accredit  the 
Book  of  Daniel  is  proof  that  neither  honesty 
nor  fairness  may  be  looked  for  from  the 
sceptics.  In  the  judgment  of  all  reasonable 
men,  this  single  testimony  will  go  far  to 
decide  the  issue.^ 

The   First  Book  of  Maccabees  is  a  work 
of  the  highest  excellence.     It  has  an  author- 
ity  and    value  which  no  other   part  of  the 
Apocrypha  possesses,  and  even   Luther  de- 
'  On  this  see  also  p.  98,  pos/. 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR    OF    DANIEL  6/ 

clared  it  not  unworthy  to  be  reckoned  among 
the  sacred  books  of  Scripture.  The  author 
was  indeed  "a  holy  and  gifted  Jew,"  and 
though  the  suggestion  that  he  was  no  other 
than  John  Hyrcanus  is  now  discredited,  it 
gives  proof  of  his  eminence  both  for  piety 
and  learning.  And  one  of  the  most  striking 
and  solemn  passages  of  this  book,  the  record 
of  the  dying  words  of  the  venerable  Mat- 
tathias,  refers  to  the  Daniel  of  the  Exile 
and  the  book  which  bears   his  name.^ 

Notwithstanding  the  extraordinary  eru- 
dition which  has  been  brought  to  bear 
upon  this  controversy,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware  the  full  significance  of  this  fact  has 
hitherto  escaped  notice.  There  is  internal 
evidence  that  i  Maccabees  was  written  be- 
fore the  death  of  John  Hyrcanus  (e.g.  io6). 
Allowing,  then,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
the  utterly  improbable  hypothesis  that  the 

^  I  Mace.  ii.  59,  60.  The  whole  passage  is  important,  but 
the  special  reference  is  to  the  words  :  "Ananias,  Azarias,  and 
Misael  by  believing  were  saved  out  of  the  flame.  Daniel  for 
his  innocency  was  delivered  from  the  mouth  of  the  lions." 
Nor  is  this  all.  Thewords ^SiXvynaeprjiiaatcos  in  I  Macc.  i. 
54  are  quoted  from  Dan.  xii.  11. 


68  DANIEL    IN    THE   CRITICS'    DEN 

canon  was  not  closed  till  after  the  time  of 
Antiochus,  the  book  affords  conclusive  proof 
that  among  the  learned  of  that  day  Daniel 
was  regarded  as  the  work  of  the  great 
prophet-prince  of  the  Captivity.  It  was  as 
such,  therefore,  that  it  must  have  been  ad- 
mitted to  the  canon.  The  theory  is  thus 
exploded  that  it  was  as  a  "pseud-epigraph" 
that  the  Sanhedrim  received  it ;  and  the 
fact  of  its  reception  becomes  evidence  of 
its  orenuineness  which  would  outweigh  the 
whole  mass  of  the  objections  and  difficulties 
which  have  been  heaped  together  upon  the 
other  side. 

If  space  were  of  no  account,  numerous 
points  might  thus  be  turned  against  the 
argument  in  support  of  which  the  critic 
adduces  them.  But  these  may  be  safely 
ignored  in  presence  of  other  proofs  of 
principal  importance. 

It  was  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  opinion  that 
"to  reject  Daniel's  prophecies  would  be  to 
undermine  the  Christian  religion."  Bishop 
Westcott  declares  that  no  other  book  of 
the    Old   Testament  had  so   great  a  share 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR    OF   DANIEL  69 

in  the  development  of  Christianity.^  To 
cite  a  hostile  witness,  Professor  Bevan  ad- 
mits that  "the  influence  of  the  book  is 
apparent  almost  everywhere."  In  this  con- 
nection he  adds :  "  The  more  we  realise 
how  vast  and  how  profound  was  the  in- 
fluence of  Daniel  in  post-Maccabean  times, 
the  more  difficult  it  is  to  believe  that  the 
book  existed  previously  for  well-nigh  four 
centuries  without  exercising  any  perceptible 
influence  whatsoever."  ^  On  this  it  maybe 
remarked,  first,  that  it  is  far  more  difficult 
to  believe  that  a  "pseud-epigraph"  could 
possibly  have  had  an  influence  so  vast  and 
so  profound  on  the  development  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  suggestion  indeed,  if  accepted, 
might  well  discredit  Christianity  altogether. 
And  secondly,  it  is  extraordinary  how  any 
person  can  fail  to  see  that  the  influence  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel  in  post-Maccabean  times 
was  due  to  the  fulfilment  of  its  predictions 
relating  to  those  times. 

Dr.    Farrar   quotes,   though    with    special 

1  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  art.  "  Daniel." 

2  Short  Com,,  p.  1 5. 


70  DANIEL  IN    THE   CRITICS'    DEN 

reprobation,  the  dictum  of  Hengstenberg, 
that  "  there  are  few  books  whose  divine 
authority  is  so  fully  established  by  the 
testimony  of  the  New  Testament,  and  in 
particular  by  the  Lord  Himself."  And  yet 
the  truth  of  all  this  no  thoughtful  Chris- 
tian can  question.  St.  Paul's  predictions  of 
the  Antichrist  point  back  to  the  visions  of 
Daniel.  And  with  those  visions  the  visions 
of  St.  John — the  Daniel  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment— are  so  inseparably  interwoven,  that 
if  the  former  be  attributed  to  imagination, 
the  latter  must  be  attributed  to  lunacy. 
The  Book  of  Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse 
stand  or  fall  together. 

But  the  matter  becomes  far  more  serious 
and  solemn  when  we  realise  how  definitely 
the  visions  of  Daniel  have  been  adopted 
in  the  teaching  of  Christ.  Dr.  Farrar  ima- 
gines that  he  has  disposed  of  the  matter 
by  the  figment  that  in  the  twenty-fourth 
chapter  of  Matthew  the  reference  to 
"Daniel  the  prophet"  was  added  by  the 
evangelist  as  an  explanatory  note.  But 
even   if  such   a   wild    suggestion   could    be 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR    OF   DANIEL  7 1 

allowed,  every  intelligent  reader  of  the 
passage  can  see  that  any  such  interpolation 
must  have  been  based  upon  the  obvious 
and  unmistakable  connection  between  the 
words  of  our  Lord  and  the  visions  of  the 
prophet  of  the  Exile. 

Here  is  a  dilemma  from  which  escape  is 
impossible.  If  the  Gospels  be  authentic  and 
true,  our  Lord  has  adopted,  and  identified 
Himself  with,  the  visions  of  this  now  dis- 
credited book.  If  the  Gospels  be  unreliable 
and  fictitious,  the  foundations  of  our  faith  are 
destroyed,  and  belief  in  Christianity  is  sheer 
superstition.  "  To  the  last  degree  danger- 
ous, irreverent,  and  unwise"  this  may  seem 
in  the  Dean  of  Canterbury's  judgment,  but 
its  truth  is  none  the  less  obvious  and 
clear. 

It  cannot  be  asserted  too  plainly  that 
Christianity  is  a  Divine  revelation.  Nor 
need  the  admission  be  withheld  that,  apart 
from  revelation  in  the  strictest  sense,  the 
Christian's  faith  would  be  without  adequate 
foundation.  It  is  easy,  indeed,  to  formulate 
a  religious  system  based  on  the  teaching  of  a 


72  DANIEL   IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

traditional  "Jesus  Christ."  But  this  is  no 
more  than  a  Christianised  Buddhism  ;  it  is 
certainly  not  Christianity.  The  main  fact  on 
which  Christianity  as  a  system  rests  is  the 
incarnation  ;  and  the  man  who,  apart  from 
revelation,  believes  in  the  incarnation  is  a 
credulous  weak  creature  who  would  believe 
anything. 

"  The  Nazarene  was  admittedly  the  son 
of  Mary.  The  Jews  declared  that  he  was 
the  son  of  Joseph  ;  the  Christian  worships 
Him  as  the  Son  of  God.  The  founder  of 
Rome  was  said  to  be  the  divinely  begotten 
child  of  a  vestal  virgin.  And  in  the  old 
Babylonian  mysteries  a  similar  parentage 
was  ascribed  to  the  martyred  son  of  Semi- 
ramis  gazetted  Queen  of  Heaven.  What 
grounds  have  we,  then,  for  distinguishing 
the  miraculous  birth  at  Bethlehem  from 
these  and  other  kindred  legends  of  the 
ancient  world  ?  To  point  to  the  resurrec- 
tion is  a  transparent  begging  of  the  question. 
To  appeal  to  human  testimony  is  utter  folly. 
At  this  point  we  are  face  to  face  with  that 
to  which  no  consensus  of  mere  human  testi- 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR    OF   DANIEL  7S 

mony   could   lend  even  an   a  priori  proba- 
bility."^ 

The  editor  of  Liix  Mundi  and  his  allies 
would  here  seek  to  save  their  reputation  for 
intelligence  by  setting  up  the  authority  of 
"the  Church"  as  an  adequate  ground  for 
faith.  This  theory,  however,  is  a  plant  of 
foreign  growth,  which,  happily,  has  not  taken 
root  in  England.  But  while  on  this  point 
the  Dean  of  Canterbury  would  probably  re- 
pudiate the  teaching  with  which,  in  its  de- 
generate days,  Pusey  House  identified  itself, 
he  would  doubtless  endorse  the  words  which 
follow.     Here  is  the  passage  : — 

"  The  Christian  creed  asserts  the  reality  of  certain 
historical  facts.  To  these  facts,  in  the  Church's 
name,  we  claim  assent;  but  we  do  so  on  grounds 
which,  so  far,  are  quite  independent  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  evangelical  records.  All  that  we  claim 
to  show  at  this  stage  is  that  they  are  historical  :  not 
historical  so  as  to  be  absolutely  without  error,  but 
historical  in  the  general  sense,  so  as  to  be  trust- 
worthy. All  that  is  necessary  for  faith  in  Christ  is 
to  be  found  in  the  moral  dispositions  which  predis- 
pose to  belief,  and  make  intelligible  and  credible  the 

1  A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion,  p.  76. 


74  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS    DEN 

thing  to  be  believed  :  coupled  with  such  acceptance 
of  the  generally  historical  character  of  the  Gospels, 
and  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  other  Apostolic 
documents,  as  justifies  belief  that  our  Lord  was 
actually  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,"  &c.^ 

This  language  is  plain  enough.  The 
gospels  are  not  even  divinely  accredited  as 
true.  They  are  "  historical  in  the  general 
sense  "  indeed,  and  therefore  as  trustworthy 
as  history  in  general.  They  afford,  there- 
fore, ample  ground  for  belief  in  the  public 
facts  of  the  life  and  death  of  Christ.  But 
who  denies  or  doubts  these  facts  ?  They 
have  their  place  in  the  Koran  and  the 
writings  of  the  Rabbis,  as  well  as  in  our 
Christian  literature.  But  on  what  ground 
can  we  justify  our  faith  in  the  transcendental 
facts  to  which  these  public  facts  owe  all  their 
spiritual  significance.'*  "To  these  facts,  in 
the  Church's  name,  we  claim  assent,"  is  the 
only  reply  vouchsafed  to  us.  Let  a  man 
but  yield  up  his  judgment  and  bow  before 
his  priest,  and  he  will  soon  acquire  "the 
moral  dispositions  which  predispose  to  belief, 

^  Lux  Mundi,  p.  340. 


EVIDENCE    IN    FAVOUR    OF    DANIEL  75 

and  make  intelligible  and  credible  the  thing 
to  be  believed."  And  whether  the  object  of 
his  worship  be  Buddha  or  Mahomet  or  Christ, 
the  result  will  be  the  same !  ^ 

"  But,"  Dr.  Farrar  here  exclaims, 

"  Our  belief  in  the  Incarnation,  and  in  the  miracles 
of  Christ,  rests  on  evidence  which,  after  repeated 
examination,  is  to  us  overwhelming.  Apart  from 
all  questions  of  personal  verification,  or  the  Inward 
Witness  of  the  Spirit,  we  can  show  that  this  evidence 
is  supported,  not  only  by  the  existing  records,  but  by 
myriads  of  external  and  independent  testimonies."  ^ 

Contempt  is  poured  upon  our  belief  that 
an  angel  messenger  appeared  to  Daniel,  and 
we  are  not  even  permitted  to  believe  that 
an  angel  ministered  to  our  Divine  Lord  in 
the  Garden  of  Gethsemane.^     But  if,  as  the 

'  I  have  dealt  with  this  more  fully  in  The  Buddha  of 
Christtmdom,  ch.  vii. 

2  P.  40. 

»  This,  according  to  Dr.  Farrar,  has  no  foundation  save 
in  the  superstitious  imagination  of  the  three  disciples  when 
half  dazed  with  sleep  \—The  Life  of  Christ,  ch.  Ivii.  What 
authority  have  we,  then,  for  the  words  alleged  to  have  been 
uttered  by  the  Lord  in  His  agony?  What  confidence  can 
we  feel  in  the  narrative  at  all  ?  The  Gospels  become  (to  use 
the  critic's  words  about  the  Book  of  Daniel)  a  charming  and 
elevating  romance  !     For  the  full  development  of  this  pro- 


76  DANIEL    IN    THE   CRITICS'    DEN 

natural  outcome  of  this  teaching,  we  should 
be  led  to  doubt  the  reality  of  the  angelic 
apparition  at  Bethlehem,  the  indignation  of 
the  teacher  will  find  vent  in  a  scream  of 
hysterical  and  unmeaning  rhetoric. 

For  the  question  at  issue  here  is  the  truth 
of  the  opening  statement  of  the  Gospel  nar- 
rative. I  allude  to  Matthew  i.  18-25,  the 
last  verse  especially.  To  the  facts  there 
recorded  only  two  persons  in  the  world 
could  testify,  and  the  witness  of  Mary  and 
Joseph  reaches  us  only  in  the  very  records 
which,  we  are  told,  are  unreliable  and  marred 
by  error.  But  Dean  Farrar  will  assure  us 
that,  while  words  attributed  to  our  Lord 
Himself  are  not  to  be  accepted  as  authentic 
and  true,  the  evidence  here  is  "  overwhelm- 
ing." Of  the  reality  of  Joseph's  visions, 
and  of  the  fact  of  Mary's  faithfulness  and 
purity,  we  are  supposed  to  have  satisfied 
ourselves,    first   by    ''personal  verification," 


fane  system,  see  Professor  Cheyne's  Encyc.  Bib.,  article 
"  Gospels."  A  man  who  accepts  that  article  and  yet  pro- 
fesses to  believe  in  Christianity  is  either  utterly  dishonest 
or  hopelessly  credulous  and  superstitious. 


EVIDENCE  IN  FAVOUR  OF  DANIEL    "]"] 

secondly  by  "  the  inward  witness  of  the 
Spirit,"  thirdly  by  study  of  the  "existing 
records  " — the  very  records  which  he  dis- 
parages— and  lastly  by  "  tens  of  thousands 
of  external  testimonies  "  !  To  discuss  this 
is  impossible,  for  here  the  writer  passes  out 
of  the  region  in  which  reason  holds  sway, 
and  parts  company  even  with  common-sense. 
The  position  of  the  Christian  is  an  in- 
telligible one.  Though  he  believes  in  the 
unseen  and  the  unprovable,  his  faith  is 
strictly  rational ;  for,  assuming  a  Divine 
revelation,  belief  is  the  highest  act  of  reason. 
I  cannot  here  discuss  the  grounds  on  which 
he  claims  to  possess  such  a  revelation.^  I 
merely  note  the  fact  that  the  Christian  main- 
tains such  a  claim,  and  that,  if  it  be  assented 
to,  his  position  is  unassailable.  But  if  once 
the  validity  of  that  claim  be  destroyed,  every 
fearless  thinker  must  fall  back  upon  scep- 
ticism as  "the  rational  attitude  of  a  thinking 
mind  towards  the  supernatural."  "     The  story 

^  This,  of  course,  would  raise  the  whole  question  of  In- 
spiration, the  discussion  of  which  would  be  impossible  here. 
But  see  p.  ii,  ante. 

^  Mill's  Essays  on  Religion^  p.  242. 


78  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

of  the  Incarnation  sinks  at  once  to  the  level 
of  a  Galilean  legend,  and  our  faith  in  Chris- 
tianity is  the  merest  superstition. 

Not  that  the  removal  of  spurious  portions 
of  the  canon  need  necessarily  lessen  faith  in 
what  remains.  But,  as  already  urged,  if  the 
Book  of  Daniel  be  expunged  the  Revelation 
of  John  must  share  its  fate,  and  in  view 
of  their  exclusion  numerous  passages  in  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles  must  be  fearlessly  re- 
edited.  Some  may  imagine  that  the  process, 
if  intrusted  to  reverent  hands,  would  not 
undermine  the  fabric  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole  ; 
but  all  will  admit  that  it  could  not  fail  to 
weaken  it.  Nor  is  this  plea  put  forward  as 
an  excuse  for  clinging  to  what  is  doubtful. 
It  is  designed  only  as  a  protest  and  a  warn- 
ing against  the  recklessness  and  levity  of 
the  critics. 


CHAPTER  VI 

"violent   errors" 

"  The  existence  of  violent  errors  as  to  mat- 
ters with  which  a  contemporary  must  have 
been  famiHar,  at  once  refutes  all  pretence  of 
historic  authenticity  in  a  book  professing  to 
have  been  written  by  an  author  in  the  days 
and  country  which  he  describes."  "  By  no 
possibility  could  the  book  have  been  written 
in  the  days  of  the  Babylonian  exile."  Thus 
it  is  that  Dean  Farrar  disposes  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel.  Such  dogmatism,  while  it  will 
surprise  and  distress  the  thoughtful  and  well- 
informed,  will  no'doubt  overwhelm  the  simple 
folk  whom  this  volume  of  the  Expositor  s 
Bible  is  presumably  intended  to  enlighten. 
Indeed,  the  writer  betrays  throughout 
his  belief  that,  from  Bacon  to  Pusey,  all 
who  have  accepted  the  Book  of  Daniel  as 
authentic  have  been  wanting  either  in  hon- 

79 


8o  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

esty  or  intelligence.  And  it  suggests  that 
he  himself  is  one  of  a  line  of  scholars  who,  as 
the  result  of  independent  inquiry,  are  agreed 
in  rejecting  it.  The  discovery  of  the  hidden 
records  of  the  court  of  Babylon  cannot  be 
much  longer  deferred,  and  when  these  shall 
have  been  brought  to  light  we  shall  learn, 
perchance,  on  which  side  the  folly  lies — that 
of  the  believers  or  of  the  critics.  And  while 
an  ignorant  public  is  easily  imposed  upon  by 
a  parade  of  seeming  scholarship,  no  one  who 
is  versed  in  the  Daniel  controversy  can  fail 
to  recognise  that  fair  and  independent  inquiry 
is  absolutely  wanting. 

Porphyry  the  Pagan  it  was  who  set  the 
ball  rolling  long  ago.  After  resting  for 
centuries  it  was  again  put-  in  motion  by 
the  rationalists.  And  now  that  the  fashion 
has  set  towards  scepticism,  and  "  Higher 
Criticism "  is  supposed  to  denote  higher 
culture,  critic  follows  critic,  like  sheep 
through  a  gap.  Here  in  this  last  contribution 
to  the  controversy  the  writer  falls  into  line, 
wholly  unconscious  that  the  "  violent  errors  " 
he  pillories  have  an  existence  only  in  the 


"  VIOLENT    ERRORS "  8  I 

ignorance  of  those  who  denounce  them. 
And  we  seek  in  vain  for  a  single  page  that 
gives  proof  of  fair  and  unbiassed  inquiry. 

But  the  critic  will  tell  us  that  the  time  for 
inquiry  is  past,  for  the  question  is  no  longer 
open.  "  There  is  no  shadow  of  doubt  on 
the  subject  left  in  the  minds  of  such  scholars 
as  Driver,  Cheyne,  Sanday,  Bevan,  and 
Robertson  Smith."  ^  This  list  of  names  is  in- 
tended as  a  climax  to  the  pretentious  periods 
which  precede  it,  but  this  grouping  together 
of  the  living  and  the  dead  makes  it  savour 
rather  of  anti-climax.  Do  these  writers 
monopolise  the  scholarship  of  England  ?  or 
does  the  list  represent  the  authorities  hostile 
to  the  Book  of  Daniel  ? 

It  may  seem  ungracious  to  add  that  not 
one  of  these  distinguished  men  has  ever 
given  proof  of  fitness  for  an  inquiry  so  diffi- 
cult and  complex.  And  as  for  the  treatise 
here  under  review,  every  part  of  it  gives 
proof  of  absolute  unfitness  for  the  task.  It 
is  easy  to  convict  an  accused  person  if  all 
his  witnesses  are  put  out  of  court  and  re- 

>  p.  ii8, 

F 


82  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

fused  a  hearing,  and  his  own  words  and 
acts  are  misrepresented  and  distorted.  Yet 
such  is  the  treatment  here  accorded  to  the 
Book  of  Daniel.  Not  one  of  the  champions 
of  faith  is  allowed  a  hearing,  and  the  exegesis 
offered  of  the  prophetic  portions  of  the  book 
would  be  denounced  as  a  mere  travesty  by 
every  intelligent  student  of  prophecy.  In 
not-  a  few  instances,  indeed,  the  transparent 
error  and  folly  of  the  critic's  scheme  will  be 
clear  even  to  the  ordinary  reader. 

Take  the  Seventy  Weeks  as  an  example. 
In  adopting  what  he  terms  "the  Antiochian 
hypothesis  "  of  the  sceptics,  the  critic  is  con- 
fronted by  the  fact  that  "it  does  not  accu- 
rately correspond  with  ascertainable  dates." 
"  It  is  true,"  he  says,  "  that  from  B.C.  588  to 
B.C.  164  only  gives  us  424  years,  instead  of 
490  years."  But  this  difficulty  he  disposes 
of  by  declaring  that  "  precise  computation 
is  nowhere  prevalent  in  the  sacred  books." 
And  he  adds,  "to  such  purely  mundane 
and  secondary  matters  as  close  reckoning 
of  dates  the  Jewish  writers  show  themselves 
manifestly  indifferent."     No  statement  could 


"  VIOLENT    ERRORS  "  83 

well  be  more  unwarrantable.  A  "  close 
reckoning  of  dates "  is  almost  a  speciality 
of  "Jewish  writers."  No  other  writings  can 
compare  with  theirs  in  this  respect.  But  let 
us  hear  what  the  critic  has  to  urge. 

"That  there  were  differences  of  compu- 
tation," he  remarks,  "as  regards  Jeremiah's 
seventy  years,  even  in  the  age  of  the  exile, 
is  sufficiently  shown  by  the  different  views  as 
to  their  termination  taken  by  the  Chronicler 
(2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22),  who  fixes  it  B.C.  536, 
and  by  Zechariah  (Zech.  i.  12),  who  fixes  it 
about  B.C.  519."  This  is  his  only  appeal  to 
Scripture,  and,  as  I  have  already  shown, ^ 
it  is  but  an  ignorant  blunder,  arising  from 
confounding  the  different  eras  of  the  Servi- 
tude, the  Captivity,  and  the  Desolations. 

Dr.  Farrar  next  appeals  to  "exactly  similar 
mistakes  of  reckoning  "  in  Josephus,  and  he 
enumerates  the  followinof : — 


'fc> 


"  I.  In  his  Jewish  Wars  (V^.  iv.  8)  he  says  that 
there  were  639  years  between  the  second  year  of 
Cyrus  and  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  by  Titus 
(a.D.  70).      Here  is  an  error  of  more  than  30  years. 

^  Pp.  21-22,  ante. 


84  DANIEL   IN    THE   CRITICS'   DEN 

"  2.  In  his  Antiquities  (XX.  x.)  he  says  that 
there  were  434  years  between  the  return  from  the 
Captivity  (B.C.  536)  and  the  reign  of  Antiochus 
Eupator  (B.C.  164-162).  Here  is  an  error  of  more 
than  60  years. 

"3.  In  his  Antiquities,  XIII.  xi.  i,  he  reckons 
481  years  between  the  return  from  the  Captivity 
and  the  time  of  Aristobulus  (B.C.  105-104).  Here 
is  an  error  of  some  50  years. 

These  "mistakes"  will  repay  a  careful 
scrutiny.  In  the  passage  first  cited,  Josephus 
reckons  the  period  between  the  foundation 
of  the  first  temple  by  Solomon  and  its  de- 
struction by  Titus  as  11 30  years  7  months 
and  15  days.  **  And  from  the  second  build- 
ing of  it,  which  was  done  by  Haggai,  in  the 
second  year  of  Cyrus  the  king,"  the  interval 
was  639  years  and  45  days.  This,  be  it 
remarked,  is  given  as  proof  that  "precise 
computation "  is  nowhere  to  be  looked  for 
in  Jewish  writers !  The  enumeration  of  the 
very  days,  however,  renders  it  certain  that 
Josephus  had  before  him  chronological  tables 
of  absolute  precision.  But  in  computing  the 
second  era  above  mentioned,  he  refers  to  the 
prophet  Haggai,  who,  with  Zechariah,  pro- 


**  VIOLENT    ERRORS  "  85 

moted  the  building  of  the  second  temple  in 
the  second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes.  As 
this  historian  speaks  elsewhere  of  Artaxerxes 
as  Cyrus ^  so  here  he  calls  Darius  by  that 
title.  The  period,  therefore,  was  (according 
to  our  chronology)  from  B.C.  520  to  a.d.  70 — 
that  is,  589  years — that  is,  about  fifty  years 
less  than  Josephus  reckons.  In  Dr.  Farrar's 
third  example,  this  same  excess  of  about  fifty 
years  again  appears  ;  and  if  in  his  second 
example  we  substitute  424  years  for  the 
doubtful  reading  of  434  years,  we  reach  a 
precisely  similar  result. 

What  are  we  to  conclude  from  these  facts? 
Not  that  the  ancient  Jews  were  careless  or 
indifferent  in  regard  to  chronology,  which 
would  be  flagrantly  untrue  ;  but  that  their 
chronological  tables,  though  framed  with 
absolute  precision,  were  marked  by  errors 
which  amounted  to  an  excess  of  some  fifty 
years  in  the  very  period  to  which  the  era  of 
the  seventy  weeks  must  be  assigned. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  solution  which  is 

^  Ant.)   XI.  vi.   I.      Cyrus,  like  Cesar  and  the  modern 
Kaiser,  seems  to  have  been  used  as  a  title. 


86  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

definite  and  adequate  of  the  only  serious 
objection  which  the  critic  can  urge  against 
the  application  of  this  prophecy  to  Messiah. 
Of  that  application  Dr.  Farrar  writes  : — 

"  It  is  finally  discredited  by  the  fact  that  neither 
our  Lord,  nor  His  apostles,  nor  any  of  the  earhest 
Christian  writers,  once  appealed  to  the  evidence  of 
this  prophecy,  which,  on  the  principles  of  Hengsten- 
berg  and  Dr.  Pusey,  would  have  been  so  decisive ! 
If  such  a  proof  lay  ready  to  their  hand — a  proof 
definite  and  chronological — why  should  they  have 
deliberately  passed  it  over  ?  "  ^ 

The  answer  is  full  and  clear,  that  any  such 
appeal  would  have  been  discredited,  and  any 
such  proof  refuted,  by  reference  to  what  (as 
Josephus  shows  us)  was  the  received  chron- 
ology of  the  age  they  lived  in.  But  what 
possible  excuse  can  be  made  for  those  who, 
with  the  full  light  that  history  now  throws 
upon  the  sacred  page,  not  only  reject  its 
teaching,  but  use  their  utmost  ingenuity  to 
darken  and  distort  it?  "From  the  decree 
to  restore  Jerusalem  unto  the  Anointed  One 
(or  '  the  Messiah '),  the  Prince " — this,  to 
quote  Dr.  Farrar's  own  words,"  describes 
1  P.  287.  2  P.  275. 


**  VIOLENT    ERRORS  "  8/ 

the  era  here  in  view.  There  is  no  question 
that  the  Holy  City  was  restored.  There  is 
no  question  that  its  restoration  was  in  pur- 
suance of  a  decree  of  Artaxerxes  I.  The 
date  of  that  decree  is  known.  From  that 
date  unto  "the  Messiah,  the  Prince,"  was 
exactly  the  period  specified  in  the  prophecy.^ 
But  Dr.  Farrar  will  tell  us  that  the  real 
epoch  was  not  the  decree  to  restore  Jeru- 
salem, but  the  catastrophe  by  which  Jeru- 
salem was  laid  in  ruins.  "  It  is  obvious," 
he  says,  after  enumerating  "the  views  of  the 
Rabbis  and  Fathers,"  "that  not  one  of  them 
accords  with  the  allusions  of  the  narrative 
and  prayer,  except  that  which  makes  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple  the  termimcs  a 
qzio"'^  This  sort  of  talk  is  bad  enough  with 
those  who  seek  to  adapt  divine  prophecy  to 
what  they  suppose  to  be  the  facts  it  refers  to. 
But  the  suggestion  here  is  that  a  holy  and 
gifted  C/iasid,  writing  in  B.C.  164,  with  the 
open  page  of  history  before  him,  described 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  "a  decree  to 

^  See  Ch.  \X.,post. 
2  Pp.  288,  289. 


88  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

restore  Jerusalem,"  and  then  described  a 
period  of  424  years  as  490  years !  And  at 
the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century  of  the 
Christian  era,  these  puerilities  of  the  scep- 
tics are  solemnly  reproduced  by  the  Dean 
of  Canterbury  for  the  enlightenment  of  Chris- 
tian England !  To  escape  from  a  difficulty 
by  taking  refuge  in  an  absurdity  is  like 
committing  suicide  in  order  to  escape  from 
danger. 

Other  writers  tell  us  that  the  era  of  the 
seventy  weeks  dated  from  the  divine  promise 
recorded  in  Jeremiah  xxix.  10.^  But  though 
this  view  is  free  from  the  charge  of  absurdity 
it  will  not  bear  scrutiny.  That  was  not  a 
"commandment"  to  build  Jerusalem,  but 
merely  a  promise  of  future  restoration.  All 
these  theories,  moreover,  savour  of  perverse- 
ness  and  casuistry  in  presence  of  the  fact 
that  Scripture  records  so  definitely  the  "  com- 

'  Mr.  Bevan  says  {Com.^  p.  155)  "the  '■word'  [command- 
ment] is  of  course"  this  prophecy.  The  force  of  this  "of 
course"  is  solely  that  this  destroys  the  Messianic  applica- 
tion of  the  angel's  message  !  The  term  used  is  one  which 
occurs  more  than  a  thousand  times  in  Scripture  with  many 
shades  of  meaning,  and  in  the  Book  of  Esther  it  is  repeatedly 
used,  as  here,  of  the  decree  of  a  Persian  king. 


"  VIOLENT    ERRORS "  89 

mandment "  in  pursuance  of  which  it  was  in 
fact  rebuilt. 

Neither  was  it  without  significance  that 
the  prophetic  period  dated  from  the  restora- 
tion under  Nehemiah.  The  era  of  the 
Servitude  had  ended  with  the  accession  of 
Cyrus,  and  the  seventy  years  of  the  Desola- 
tions had  already  expired  in  the  second  year 
of  Darius.  But  the  Jews  were  still  without 
a  constitution  or  a  polity.  In  a  word,  their 
condition  was  then  much  what  it  is  to-day. 
It  was  the  decree  of  the  twentieth  year 
of  Artaxerxes  which  restored  the  national 
autonomy  of  Judah. 

And  a  precedent  which  is  startling  in  its 
definiteness  may  be  found  to  justify  the 
belief  that  such  an  era  would  not  begin 
while  the  existence  of  Judah  as  a  nation  was 
in  abeyance.  I  allude  to  the  480  years  of 
I  Kings  vi.  i,  computed  from  the  Exodus 
to  the  Temple.  If  a  little  of  the  time  and 
energy  which  the  critics  have  expended  in 
denouncing  that  passage  as  a  forgery  or  a 
blunder  had  been  devoted  to  searching  for 
its    hidden    meaning,    their    labours    might 


90  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

perchance  have  been  rewarded.  That  the 
chronology  of  the  period  was  correctly 
known  is  plain  from  the  thirteenth  chapter 
of  the  Acts,  which  enables  us  to  reckon  the 
very  same  era  as  573  years.  How  then 
can  this  seeming  error  of  93  years  be  ac- 
counted for  ?  It  is  p7^ecisely  the  sum  of  the 
several  eras  of  the   Servitudes}     The  infer- 

^  Acts  xiii.  ]8-2i  gives  40  years  in  the  wilderness,  450 
years  under  the  Judges,  and  40  years  for  the  reign  of  Saul. 
To  which  must  be  added  the  40  years  of  David's  reign,  and 
the  first  three  years  of  Solomon,  for  it  was  in  Yixs  fourth  year 
that  he  began  to  build  the  Temple.  The  servitudes  were  to 
Mesopotamia  for  8  years,  to  Moab  for  18  years,  to  Canaan 
for  20  years,  to  Midian  for  7  years,  and  to  the  Philistines  for 
40  years.  See  Judges  iii.  8,  14  ;  iv.  2,  3  ;  vi.  i  ;  xiii.  i. 
But  8+18  +  20  +  7  +  40  years  are  precisely  equal  to  93  years. 
To  believe  that  this  is  a  mere  coincidence  would  involve 
an  undue  strain  upon  our  faith. 

Acts  xiii.  20  is  one  of  the  very  many  passages  where  the 
New  Testament  Revisers  have  corrupted  the  text  through 
neglect  of  the  well-known  principles  by  which  experts  are 
guided  in  dealing  with  conflicting  evidence.  It  is  certain 
that  neither  the  apostle  said,  nor  the  evangelist  wrote,  that 
Israel's  enjoyment  of  the  land  was  limited  to  450  years,  or 
that  450  years  elapsed  before  the  era  of  the  Judges.  The  text 
adopted  by  R.V.  is  therefore  clearly  wrong.  Dean  Alford 
regards  it  "  as  an  attempt  at  correcting  the  difficult  chron- 
ology of  the  verse  ; "  and  he  adds,  "  taking  the  words  as 
they  stand,  no  other  sense  can  be  given  to  them  than  that 
the  time  of  the  Judges  lasted  450  years."  That  is,  as  he 
explains,  not  that  the  Judges  ruled  for  450  years — in  which 
case  the  accusative  would  be  used,  as  in  verse  18 — but,  as 


"violent  errors  91 

ence  therefore  is  clear  that  "the  480th  year" 
means  the  480th  year  of  national  life  and 
national  responsibilities.  And  if  this  prin- 
ciple applied  to  an  era  apparently  historical, 
we  may  a  fortiori  be  prepared  to  find  that 
it  governs  an  era  which  is  mystic  and 
prophetic. 

the  use  of  the  dative  implies,  that  the  period  until  Saul, 
characterised  by  the  rule  of  the  Judges,  lasted  450  years. 

The  objection  that  I  omit  the  servitude  of  Judges  x.  7,  8 
is  met  by  a  reference  to  the  R.V.  The  punctuation  of  the 
passage  in  Bagster's  Bible  perverts  the  sense.  That  servi- 
tude affected  only  the  tribes  beyond  Jordan. 


CHAPTER    VII 

PROFESSOR    driver's    "  BOOK    OF    DANIEL  " 

THE    EVIDENCE    OF    THE    CANON 

To  have  answered  Dean  Farrar's  Book  of 
Daniel  may  appear  to  some  but  a  cheap 
and  barren  victory.  For  they  will  urge  that 
if  the  attack  on  Daniel  were  entrusted  to 
abler  hands,  the  issue  would  be  different. 
But  the  suggestion  is  untenable.  While  the 
passing  years  are  bringing  to  light  from 
time  to  time  fresh  evidence  to  confirm 
the  authenticity  of  the  book,  the  treasury 
of  the  critics  is  exhausted.  They  have 
no  abler,  no  more  trusted,  champion  than 
Professor  Driver  of  Oxford ;  yet  in  his 
Introduction  there  is  not  a  single  count  in 
the  elaborate  indictment  of  Daniel  that 
will  not  be  found  in  his  apparattis  criticus. 
And   now,  in  his  Book  of  Daniel^  after  an 

^  The  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges:    The 

Book  of  Daniel^  by  the  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,   D.D.,  Regius 

92 


DR.    DRIVERS    "BOOK    OF    DANIEL.  93 

interval  of  ten  years,  he  has  reproduced 
these  same  stock  difficulties  and  objections, 
and  for  the  most  part  in  the  same  words. 

That  volume  is  fitted  to  excite  feel- 
ings of  surprise  and  disappointment.  An 
"  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testament"  may  fitly  cite  what  German 
sceptics  have  written  on  the  Book  of  Daniel. 
But  it  is  deplorable  that  a  commentary  for 
the  use  of  "schools  and  colleges,"  coming 
from  the  pen  of  an  English  clergyman,  a 
scholar  of  high  repute,  and  the  occupant 
of  a  chair  in  the  University  of  Oxford, 
should  be  merely  a  modified  reproduction 
of  what  German  rationalism  has  to  urge 
on  one  side  of  a  pending  controversy. 
Surely  we  might  have  expected  some  in- 
dication of  independent  inquiry  and  free 
thought ;  but  we  look  for  it  in  vain.  The 
very  same  criticisms  which  Dr.  Farrar  has 
strung    together    are   once    again    paraded. 

Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University  of  Oxford.  As 
compared  with  the  "  Daniel "  section  of  the  Introduc- 
tion^ the  only  new  element  is  the  evidence  of  a  further 
lapse  towards  the  unreasoning  scepticism  of  the  "Higher 
Critics." 


94  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

The  language,  of  course,  is  very  different, 
but  the  matter  is  for  the  most  part  identical. 

Of  these  criticisms  there  is  only  one 
which  is  of  vital  importance.  If,  as  the 
critics  assert,  there  was  no  invasion  of 
Judea  and  no  deportation  of  Jewish  cap- 
tives in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  the 
historical  basis  upon  which  the  Book  of 
Daniel  rests  is  destroyed,  and  the  book  as 
a  whole  is  discredited.  To  that  criticism, 
therefore,  I  invite  the  reader's  close  and 
earnest  attention.  If  he  finds  it  to  be 
sustained,  let  him  regard  the  controversy 
as  closed.  But  if  he  finds  it  disproved  by 
Scripture,  and  demonstrated  to  be  erroneous 
by  the  strict  test  of  chronology,  let  him 
look  upon  it  as  discrediting  the  critics.^ 

As  for  the  rest  of  these  criticisms,  what 
Professor  Driver  says  of  some  is  true  of 
them  all :  they  will  influence  the  mind 
"according  as  the  critic,   upon  independent 

1  Pages  14-18,  ante,  seemed  a  sufficient  reply  to  Dr.  Farrar 
on  this  point.  But  as  Dr.  Driver  blindly  follows  the  same 
false  lead,  not  even  avoiding  the  blunder  of  the  journey 
from  Carchemish  to  Babylon  across  the  desert,  I  add  an 
excursus  on  the  subject.    See  Appendix  I.,  p.  1^3,  post. 


DR.    driver's    *'  BOOK   OF    DANIEL."         95 

grounds,  has  satisfied  himself  that  the  book 
is  the  work  of  a  later  author  or  written  by 
Daniel  himself."  If,  therefore,  any  one  of 
the  visions  of  Daniel  can  be  shown  to  be 
a  Divine  prophecy,  the  authority  of  the 
book  is  established.  And  of  this,  full  and 
incontestable  proof  is  afforded  by  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  vision  of  the  Seventy  Weeks. 

The  course  of  study  which  led  me  to  these 
results  was  begun  a  quarter  of  a  century 
ago  under  pressure  of  doubts  whether  the 
Bible  could  withstand  the  attacks  of  the 
sceptical  movement  known  as  the  "  Higher 
Criticism."  In  accordance  with  my  usual 
habit,  I  set  myself  to  test  the  matter  by 
examining  the  critics'  strongest  position. 
For  their  indictment  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 
is  supposed  to  be  unanswerable,  and  I  con- 
fess that  at  first  it  seemed  to  me  most 
formidable.  But  no  one  who  has  much 
experience  of  judicial  inquiries  is  ever  sur- 
prised to  find  that  a  case  which  seems  con- 
vincing when  presented  ex  parte,  breaks 
down  under  cross-examination,  or  is  shat- 
tered  by  opposing   evidence.      And  this  is 


96  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

emphatically  true  of  the  sceptical  attack  on 
Daniel. 

And  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  present 
inquiry  is  altogether  judicial.  The  question 
involved  is  precisely  similar  in  character 
to  issues  such  as  are  daily  decided  in  our 
Courts  of  Justice.  And  one  of  H.M.  Judges 
with  a  good  "  special  jury  "  would  be  a  fitter 
tribunal  to  deal  with  it  than  any  company  of 
philologists,  however  eminent.  Due  weight 
would  of  course  be  given  to  the  evidence 
of  such  men  as  experts.  But  the  dictum^ 
so  familiar  to  the  lawyer,  would  not  be 
forgotten,  that  the  testimony  which  least  de- 
serves credit  is  that  of  skilled  witnesses,  for 
the  judgment  of  such  men  becomes  warped 
by  their  habit  of  regarding  a  subject  from 
one  point  of  view  only.^ 

The  critics  maintain  that  the  definiteness 
of  the  predictions  of  Daniel  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  book  was  written  after  the 
events  referred  to ;  and  further,  that  its 
"visions"  cease  with  the  reign  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.     The  main  issues  of  fact,  there- 

>  Taylor's  Evidence,  Part  III.  Chap.  V.  §  1877. 


DR.  DRIVERS  "BOOK  OF  DANIEL     97 

fore,  to  be  decided  at  such  a  trial  would  be 
these  : — 

(i)  Was  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  existence 
in  pre-Maccabean  days?  and 

(2)  Was  any  one  of  its  visions  fulfilled  in 
later  times? 

And  if  either  of  these  issues  should  be 
found  against  the  critics  their  whole  case 
would  be  shattered. 

The  discovery  of  Neptune  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  astronomers  found  reason  to  assume 
the  existence  of  such  a  planet.  And  if  the 
Book  of  Daniel  had  been  lost,  true  criticism 
would  assume  the  presence  of  a  Daniel  at  the 
Court  of  Babylon.  For  otherwise  the  story 
of  the  exile  and  return  of  the  Jews  would 
be  intelligible  only  on  the  assumption  of 
miracles  such  as  those  which  marked  the 
Exodus.  And  further  ;  if  the  advocates  of 
the  pseud-epigraph  theory  of  Daniel  were 
versed  in  the  science  of  evidence,  they  would 
recognise  that,  on  their  own  hypothesis, 
the  presence  of  the  book  in  the  canon  is  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  the  man.  For 
the  Sanhedrim  would  never  have  accepted  it 


98  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

unless  they  had  had   knowledge  of  the  his- 
torical facts  on  which  it  is  based. 

But  while  the  existence  of  Daniel  was 
indisputable  when  Dr.  Driver  wrote  his 
Introduction,  it  was  only  "probable"  when 
he  came  to  write  his  Book  of  Daniel — a 
deplorable  lapse  from  true  criticism  to 
"  Higher  Criticism,"  and  from  rational  belief 
to  unreasoning  scepticism.  On  this  point  I 
have  already  cited  the  testimony  of  Ezekiel ; 
and  that  testimony  is  conclusive  unless  the 
critics  can  find  some  adequate  answer  to  it. 
The  only  answer  they  offer  is  not  even 
reasonable.^  And  as  regards  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  the  same  remark  applies,  though 
in  a  modified  degree,  to  the  testimony  of 
I  Maccabees.^ 

Even  if  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses 
stood  alone,  it  would  prevail  with  any  im- 

1  See  pp.  62-66,  iDite.  In  his  Lines  of  Defence  (p.  182) 
Professor  Margoliouth  claims  to  have  established  that  a 
pre-Maccabean  writer,  Ben-Sira,  "  identified  the  Daniel 
mentioned  by  Ezekiel  with  the  Daniel  of  the  book  that  bears 
his  name,"  and  that  he  "  bases  a  theological  argument  on 
the  last  verse  of  Daniel,  and  borrows  phrases  from  the  earlier 
part  of  the  book." 

-  See  pp.  66-68,  ante. 


DR.    driver's    "book    OF    DANIEL  "         99 

partial  tribunal.  But  when  we  come  to 
consider  the  general  question  of  the  canon, 
the  weight  of  proof  becomes  overwhelming. 
Apart  from  the  disturbing  influence  of  these 
controversies,  no  reasonable  person  would 
reject  the  clear  and  definite  tradition  that 
the  completion  of  the  Old  Testament  canon 
was  the  work  of  the  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue.  In  an  age  when  scepticism  of 
a  singularly  shallow  type  has  been  allowed 
to  run  riot,  it  is  the  fashion  to  reject  that 
tradition  because  of  the  myths  and  legends 
which  have  attached  themselves  to  it.  But 
a  soberer  scholarship  would  recognise,  first, 
that  this  very  element  is  a  proof  of  its 
antiquity,  and  of  the  hold  it  gained  upon  the 
Jewish  mind  in  early  times  ;  and  secondly, 
that  if  historical  facts  are  to  be  ignored  on 
this  ground  the  whole  volume  of  ancient 
history  must  shrink  to  very  small  proportions. 
But  all  that  concerns  me  here  is  to  estab- 
lish that  the  canon  was  complete  before  the 
Maccabean  epoch. ^      And   upon    this   point 

^  Upon  the  general  question  of  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  the  reader  will  find  in   Dr.  Kyle's  book  a  fair 


100  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

I  might  almost  rest  the  case  upon  the  evi- 
dence of  a  single  witness. 

As  mentioned  in  an  earlier  chapter/  Ec- 
clesiastictts  was  written  not  later  than  about 
B.C.  200.  The  object  of  the  book  is  thus 
explained  by  the  grandson  of  the  writer, 
who  translated  it  into  Greek  not  later  than 
B.C.  132^:  "My  grandfather  Jesus,  seeing 
he  had  much  given  himself  to  the  read- 
ing of  the  law,  of  the  prophets  and  the 
other  books  of  the  Fathers,  and  had  gotten 
therein  sufficient  proficiency,  was  drawn  him- 
self to  write  something  pertaining  to  learning 
and    wisdom."      Now    it    is    acknowledged 

statement  of  the  arguments  in  favour  of  a  late  date.  And 
any  one  who  is  used  to  frequent  our  courts  of  justice  will 
recognise  the  kinship  of  those  arguments  with  the  case 
which  is  always  made  against  any  claim  to  prescriptive  or 
ancient  rights.  For  treatises  of  a  different  kind  see  by  all 
means  Dr.  Alexander's  article  on  the  "  Canon,"  and  Dr. 
Ginsburg's  on  the  "  Great  Synagogue,"  in  Kittds  Cyclo- 
ieaia;  and  also  Lecture  VI.  in  Pusey's  Daniel  the  Prophet . 

1  P.  52,  ante. 

2  The  evidence  clearly  points  to  an  earlier  date  for  both 
the  book  and  the  translation  of  it.  But  as  I  wish  to  avoid 
all  "  collateral  issues."  I  adopt  for  the  sake  of  argument  the 
dates  accepted  by  the  critics.  See,  however.  Dr.  Ginsburg's 
article  in  Kitto's  Cyclopedia,  also  Edersheim's  Life  and 
Times  of  the  Messiah^  vol.  i.  pp.  26  ff. 


DR.    DRIVERS    "BOOK    OF    DANIEL  lOI 

even  by  hostile  critics  that  the  words  "the 
law  and  the  prophets  and  the  other  books," 
or  as  he  calls  them  again,  "the  rest  of  the 
books,"  refer  to  the  sacred  writings,  and 
that  they  imply  the  existence  at  that  time  of 
a  recognised  canon. 

"  I  think  it  quite  incredible,"  says  Dr. 
Ryle,  "  that  the  thrice  repeated  formula 
should  have  been  an  invention  of  the  Greek 
translator,  and  not  rather  the  description 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  commonly  used 
among  the  Jews."^  The  Law,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Writings — these  same  words  stand 
upon  the  title-page  of  the  Jewish  Bible  of 
to-day,  and  no  fair  and  competent  tribunal 
would  hesitate  to  find  that  that  title  has 
covered  the  same  books  for  more  than 
twenty-three  centuries. 

Ben-Sira  was  "a  poetical  paraphraser" 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  his  book  abounds 
in  passages  which  are  imitations  of  the  can- 
onical writers.  And,  "  as  clear  examples  of 
such  imitation  can  be  found  of  all  the  can- 
onical books,  with  the  doubtful  exception  of 
^  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  (2nd  ed.),  p.  313. 


I02  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICs'    DEN 

the  Book  of  Daniel,  these  books  must,  as  a 
whole,  have  been  familiar  to  Ben-Sira,  and 
must  therefore  be  much  anterior  to  him  in 
date."  These  words  are  from  Dr.  Schechter's 
Introduction,  already  quoted,^  and  they  are 
substantiated  by  a  list  of  the  passages  re- 
ferred to.  That  list  includes  three  quota- 
tions from  Daniel ;  these  however  are,  of 
course,  rejected  by  the  critics.^ 

Now  I  confidently  maintain  that  upon  the 
evidence  any  impartial  tribunal  would  find 
that  the  canon  was  complete  before  Ben- 
Sira  wrote.  But  assuming,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  the  inclusion  of  Daniel 
is  doubtful,  the  matter  stands  thus  : — It  is 
admitted,  (i)  that  the  canon  was  complete 
in  the  second  century  B.C.  ;  and  (2)  that  no 
book  was  included  which  was  not  believed 
to  have  been  in  existence  in  the  days  of 
Nehemiah.^  For  the  test  by  which  a  book 
was  admitted  to  the  canon  was  its  claim  to 

^  P.  54,  ante  (the  quotation  is  from  p.  35). 

2  Hence  Dr.  Schechter's  expression,  "  the  doubtful  excep- 
tion of  Daniel."  He  himself  doubts,  not  the  quotations  from 
Daniel,  but  the  "^  exception  "  maintained  by  the  critics. 

^  Dr.  Ryle,  Canofi  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  175  and  188. 


DR.    DRIVERS    "BOOK    OF    DANIEL  IO3 

be  inspired  ;  and  the  Sanhedrim  held  that 
inspiration  ceased  with  the  prophets,  and 
that  no  "prophet" — that  is,  no  divinely  in- 
spired teacher — had  arisen  in  Israel  after 
the  Nehemiah  era.^  When,  therefore, 
Josephus  declares  that  the  Scriptures  were 
"justly  believed  to  be  Divine,"  and  that  the 
Jews  were  prepared  "  willingly  to  die  for 
them,"-  he  is  not  recording  merely  the 
opinion  of  his  contemporaries,  but  the 
settled  traditional  belief  of  his  nation. 

How,  then,  can  the  critics  reconcile  their 
hypothesis  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  with  its  inclusion  in  the  canon  ? 

As  regards  point  (i)  above  indicated,  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter's  testimony  carries  with 
it  the  special  authority  which  attaches  to 
the  statements  of  a  hostile  witness.  "  If,"  he 
says,  "all  the  books  of  *  the  Kethubim'  were 
known  and  received  in  the  first  century  a.d., 
and  if,  as  we  believe,  the  circumstances  of 
the  Jewish  people  rendered  it  all  but  impos- 

*  The  question  of  the  justice  of  such  beliefs  and  claims  in 
no  way  affects  the  force  of  my  argument. 
'"  Against  Apion.,  i.  8. 


104  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

sible  for  the  canon  to  receive  chanoe  or 
augmentation  in  the  first  century  B.C.,  we 
conclude  that  '  the  disputed  books  '  received  a 
recognition  in  the  last  two  or  three  decades  of 
the  second  century  B.C.,  when  John  Hyrcanus 
ruled  and  the  Jews  still  enjoyed  prosperity." 

This  ought  to  decide  the  whole  question. 
For  mark  what  it  means.  The  critics  would 
have  us  believe  that  after  the  death  of  Anti- 
ochus  some  Jewish  Chasid  incorporated  a  his- 
tory of  his  reign  in  a  historical  romance, 
casting  it  into  the  form  of  a  prophecy  sup- 
posed to  have  been  delivered  hundreds  of 
years  before ;  and  that  at  a  time  when  this 
was  still  a  matter  within  living  memory, 
the  work  was  accepted  as  divinely  inspired 
Scripture,  and  bracketed  with  the  Psalms 
of  David  among  the  sacred  books  of  the 
Hebrew  nation ! 

We  are  dealing  here,  remember,  with  the 
acts,  not  of  savages  in  a  barbarous  age,  but 
of  the  religious  leaders  of  the  Jews  in  his- 
toric times.  And  the  matter  in  question  re- 
lated to  the  most  solemn  and  important  of 
all  their  duties.     Moreover,  the  Sanhedrim 


DR.    DRIVERS    "BOOK   OF    DANIEL  I05 

of  the  second  century  b.c.  was  composed  of 
men  of  the  type  of  John  Hyrcanus  ;  men 
famed  for  their  piety  and  learning  ;  men  who 
were  heirs  of  all  the  proud  traditions  of  the 
Jewish  faith,  and  themselves  the  sons  or  suc- 
cessors of  the  heroes  of  the  noble  Maccabean 
revolt.  And  yet  we  are  asked  to  believe 
that  these  men,  with  their  extremely  strict 
views  of  inspiration  and  their  intense  reve- 
rence for  their  sacred  writings — that  these 
men,  the  most  scrupulous  and  conservative 
Church  body  that  the  world  has  ever  known 
— used  their  authority  to  smuggle  into  the 
sacred  canon  a  book  which,  ex  hypothesis  was 
a  forgery,  a  literary  fraud,  a  religious  novel 
of  recent  date. 

Such  a  figment  is  worthy  of  its  pagan 
author,  but  it  is  wholly  unworthy  of  Chris- 
tian men  in  the  position  of  English  ecclesi- 
astics and  University  Professors.  And  were 
it  not  for  the  glamour  of  their  names  it  would 
be  deemed  undeserving  of  notice.  But  our 
respect  for  Church  dignitaries  of  our  own 
times  must  not  make  us  forget  what  is  due 
to    the    memory    of   Church    dignitaries    of 


I06  DANIEL    IN    THE   CRITICS'    DEN 

another  age,  men  whose  fidehty  to  their 
trust  as  the  divinely  appointed  custodians  of 
"the  oracles  of  God"  has  earned  for  them 
the  gratitude  and  admiration  of  the  Church 
for  all  time.  Their  fitness,  moreover,  to  judge 
of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel  was  incomparably  greater 
than  could  be  claimed  for  any  of  those  who 
join  in  this  base  and  silly  slander  upon  their 
intelligence  or  their  honesty.  For  if  the 
critics  are  right,  these  men  who  were,  I  re- 
peat, the  divinely  appointed  custodians  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,^  and  from  whom  the 
Christian  Church  has  received  them,  were 
no  better  than  knaves  or  fools.  Let  no  one 
start  at  this  language,  for  it  is  not  a  whit  too 
strong.  They  were  utter  fools  if  they  were 
deceived  by  a  literary  forgery  of  their  own 
time ;  they  were  shameless  knaves  if  they 
shared  in  a  plot  to  secure  the  acceptance  of 
the  fraud. 

For  let  it  be  kept  steadily  in  view  that  no 
book  would  have  been  thus  honoured  unless 
it  was  believed  to  be  ancient.     The  "avowed 

^  Rom.  iii.  2. 


DR.    driver's    "book    OF    DANIEL "       IO7 

fiction "  theory  of  Daniel  is  puerile  in  its 
absurdity.^  If  the  book  was  not  genuine  it 
was  a  forgery  palmed  off  upon  the  Sanhe- 
drim. And  like  all  forgeries  of  that  kind  the 
MS.  must  have  been  "discovered"  by  its 
author.  But  the  "finding"  of  such  a  book 
at  such  a  period  of  the  national  history  would 
have  been  an  event  of  unparalleled  interest 
and  importance.  Where  then  is  the  record 
of  it  ?  When  it  suits  them,  the  critics  make 
great  use  of  the  argument  from  the  silence 
of  witnesses  ;  but  in  a  case  like  this  where 
that  argument  has  overwhelming  force  they 
ignore  it  altogether. 

Moreover,  the  suggestion  of  the  critics 
that  the  Sanhedrim  admitted  a  book  to  the 
canon  in  the  way  a  library  committee  adds 
a  volume  to  their  catalogue  is  grotesque  in 
the  extreme.  "They  never  determined  a 
book  to  be  canonical  in  the  sense  of  intro- 

1  Imagine  a  meeting  of  the  upper  House  of  Convocation 
to  discuss  a  proposal  to  add  Dr.  Farrar's  Life  of  Christ  to 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament !  Quite  as  grotesquely 
ridiculous  is  the  suggestion  that  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  in 
the  second  century  B.C.  would  have  entertained  the  question 
of  adding  "  an  elevating  romance "  of  their  own  age  to  the 
canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 


I08  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

ducing  it  into  the  canon.  In  every  instance 
in  which  a  writing  is  said  to  have  been 
admitted  to  the  canon,  the  writing  had 
already  been  in  existence  for  generations, 
and  had  for  generations  been  claimed  as 
canonical  before  the  discussions  arose  in 
regard  to  it.  In  every  instance  the  decision 
is  not  that  the  book  shall  now  be  received 
into  the  collection  of  sacred  writings,  but  that 
the  evidence  shows  it  to  have  been  regarded 
from  the  first  as  a  part  of  that  collection."  ^ 

One  point  more.  While  books  of  great 
repute,  such  as  Ecclesiasticus  and  i  Mac- 
cabees, were  absolutely  excluded  from  the 
canon,  and  even  canonical  books,  such  as 
the  Book  of  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
even  Ezekiel  were  challenged,  ''the  right 
of  the  Book  of  DaJiiel  to  carioiticity  was  never 
called  in  question  in  the  Ajicient  Synagogue!'  '^ 

In  disparagement  of  Daniel  the  critics 
point  to  the  extraordinary  additions  which 
mark  the  Septuagint  version.     But  owing  to 

^  Encyc.  Americana,  article  "  Bible." 
^  Edersheim's  Life  and  Times  of  the  Messiah,  vol.  ii., 
App.  V. 


DR.  driver's  "book  OF  DANIEL "   IO9 

their  want  of  experience  in  dealing  with 
evidence,  they  fail  to  see  what  signal  proof 
this  affords  of  the  antiquity  of  the  book. 
The  critics  themselves  allow  that  the  Greek 
version  of  Daniel  was  in  existence  before 
I  Maccabees  was  written.^  According  to 
their  own  case,  therefore,  the  interval  between 
the  appearance  of  the  book  and  its  translation 
into  Greek  must  have  been  within  the  memory 
of  the  older  members  of  the  Sanhedrim. 
And  yet  they  ask  us  to  believe  that  though 
during  that  interval  it  was  under  considera- 
tion for  admission  to  the  canon,  it  was 
guarded  so  carelessly  that  these  additions 
and  corruptions  were  allowed.^  The  Septua- 
gint  version  is  evidence  that  Daniel  was  a 
pre-Maccabean  work  :  the  corruptions  of  the 
text  which  mark  that  version  are  evidence 
that  it  was  in  existence  long  before  the 
Maccabean  era. 

^  The  presumption  is  strong  that  the  LXX.  version  was 
in  existence  at  the  date  to  which  the  critics  assign  the  book 
itself.  But  here,  as  on  every  other  point,  I  am  arguing  the 
question  on  bases  accepted  by  the  critics  themselves. 

^  And  Professor  Cheyne  adopts  the  suggestion  that  the 
Hebrew  original  of  ii.  14  to  vii.  was  allowed  to  be  lost ! 
(Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  art.  "  Daniel")- 


no  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

In  view  of  all  this  it  is  not  surprising  that 
even  a  writer  so  cautious  and  so  fair  as 
Canon  Girdlestone  should  assert  that  "there 
is  not  an  atom  of  ground  for  the  supposition 
that  any  of  the  books  or  parts  of  books 
which  constitute  our  Old  Testament  were 
the  work  of  men  of  that  age."  "Of  one 
thing,"  he  adds,  "we  may  be  quite  certain  : 
nothing  would  be  introduced  into  the  'Sacred 
Library '  which  was  not  believed  to  be  '  pro- 
phetic,' and  therefore  in  some  sense  Divine, 
and  though  there  were  occasionally  men  after 
Nehemiah's  time  who  had  semi-prophetic 
gifts,  the  Jews  do  not  acknowledge  them  as 
prophets.^  .  .  .  We  look  in  vain  down  the 
remains  and  traditions  of  Hebrew  history 
between  the  age  of  Nehemiah  and  the  Chris- 
tian era  for  the  appearance  of  any  men  who 
would  venture  to  add  to  or  take  from  the 
sacred  library  or  canon  which  existed  in 
Nehemiah's  days."  ^ 

Upon  the  first  of  the  issues  above  specified 

1  In  proof  of  this  he  refers  to  i  Maccabees  iv.  46  ;  ix.  27 
(which  puts  the  prophets  in  the  far  past)  ;  and  xiv.  41. 
-  The  Foundations  of  the  Bible,  ch.  ii.,  pp.  8  and  10. 


DR.    driver's    "book    OF    DANIEL"       III 

I  therefore  claim  a  decision  in  favour  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel.  I  now  proceed  to  state  the 
grounds  upon  which,  with  equal  confidence, 
I  claim  a  verdict  also  on  the  second. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    VISION    OF    THE    "SEVENTY    WEEKS  " — 
THE    PROPHETIC    YEAR 

As  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  Seventy 
Weeks  is  my  personal  contribution  to  the 
Daniel  controversy,  I  may  be  pardoned  for 
dealing  with  the  subject  here  in  greater 
detail,  albeit  this  involves  some  repetition. 
It  is  all  the  more  necessary,  moreover,  be- 
cause in  his  recent  work  Professor  Driver 
has  adopted  the  laboured  efforts  of  the 
foreign  sceptics  to  evade  the  Messianic  refer- 
ence of  the  vision.  Indeed,  his  exposition 
of  the  passage  reminds  us  of  that  sort  of 
dream  in  which  words  never  have  their 
natural  meaning  and  events  always  happen 
in  some  unexpected  way. 

In  the  ninth  chapter  of  Daniel  the  scene 
is  laid  in  Babylon,  and  the  occasion  is  the 
approaching  end  of  the    **  Desolations,"  an 


THE    "SEVENTY    WEEKS  II3 

era  which  the  critics  without  exception  con- 
found with  either  the  "  Servitude  "  or  the 
"Captivity."^  "I  Daniel,"  the  writer  tells 
us,  "understood  by  the  books  the  number 
of  the  years  whereof  the  word  of  the  Lord 
came  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet  for  the  accom- 
plishing of  the  desolations  of  Jerusalem,  even 
seventy  years."  ^  Then  follows  the  record 
of  his  passionately  earnest  prayer  on  behalf 
of  his  city  and  his  people,^  which  prayer 
brings  in  answer  the  angel's  message.  Here 
is  the  text  of  Dan.  ix.   24-27  (R.V.)*: — 

"  Seventy  weeks  are  decreed  upon  thy  people 
and  upon  thy  holy  city,  to  finish  transgression  and 
to  make  an  end  of  sins  and  to  make  reconciliation 
for  iniquity  and  to  bring  in  everlasting  righteous- 
ness and  to  seal  up  vision  and  prophecy  and  to 
anoint  the  most  holy.  Know  therefore  and  discern 
that  from  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment  to 
restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem  unto  the  anointed 
one  (or  Messiah)  the  prince  shall  be  seven  weeks 
and  threescore  and  two  weeks :  it  shall  be  built 
again  with  street  and  moat,  even  in  troublous  times. 

^  See  pp.  21,  22,  ante. 

2  Ver.  2.  2  Ver.  19. 

^  As  to  the  punctuation  of  this  passage,  see  Appendix 
III.,  p.  167,  post. 

H 


114  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

And  after  the  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  the 
anointed  one  (or  Messiah)  be  cut  off  and  shall 
have  nothing:  and  the  people  of  the  prince  that 
shall  come  shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary ; 
and  his  end  shall  be  with  a  flood,  and  even  unto 
the  end  shall  be  war ;  desolations  are  determined. 
And  he  shall  make  a  firm  covenant  with  many  for 
one  week:  and  for  the  half  of  the  week  he  shall 
cause  the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation  to  cease." 

Well  may  Professor  Driver  and  Dean 
Farrar  comment  upon  the  hopeless  diverg- 
ence v^hich  marks  "  the  bewildering  mass  of 
explanations  "  offered  by  the  numberless  ex- 
positors of  this  passage.  But  there  is  no 
reason  why  the  intelligent  reader  should 
follow  these  eminent  critics  who,  in  their 
'*  bewilderment,"  have  adopted  the  most  pre- 
posterous interpretation  of  it  ever  proposed. 
For  such  indeed  is  the  suggestion  that  any 
devout  Jew — whether  the  prophet  of  the 
Exile  or  a  Maccabean  zealot,  it  matters  not 
which — could  thus  anticipate  "  the  complete 
redemption  of  Israel  "  ^  apart  from  the  advent 
of  Messiah.  It  is  absolutely  certain  that 
the  vision  points  to  the  coming  of  Christ, 

1  The  words  are  Professor  Driver's  {Daniel,  p.  135). 


THE    "SEVENTY    WEEKS "  II5 

and  any  other  view  of  it  is  indeed  "a  resort 
of  desperation." 

May  I  now  invite  my  reader  to  follow  me 
in  the  path  which  I  myself  have  traversed  in 
seeking  the  explanation  of  the  vision  ?  Re- 
jecting all  mystical  or  strained  interpreta- 
tions, let  him  insist  on  taking  the  words  in 
their  simple  and  obvious  meaning  ;  and  with 
the  help  of  a  key  which,  though  long  over- 
looked, is  ready  at  hand,  he  will  find  the 
solution,  full  and  clear,  of  what  may  have 
seemed  a  hopeless  enigma. 

Here  was  a  man  trained  by  his  Scriptures 
to  look  for  a  Messiah  whose  advent  would 
bring  fulness  of  blessing  to  his  people  and 
city.^  But  his  people  were  in  captivity  and  his 
city  was  in  ruins.  And  having  himself  already 
passed  the  allotted  span  of  life,  he  could  not 
hope  to  outlive  the  period  of  the  Divine 
judgment  of  the  Desolations,  of  which 
some  seventeen  years  were  still  unexpired. 
So  he  set  himself  to  plead  for  light ;  and  the 
answer  came  that  the  realisation  of  the  pro- 

^  With  those  who  regard  the  Book  of  Daniel  as  a  pseud- 
epigraph  my  argument  here  should  have  special  force. 


Il6  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICs'    DEN 

mised  Messianic  blessings  was  deferred  until 
the  close  of  an  era  of  seven  times  the  seventy 
years  of  the  Desolations — not  seventy  years, 
but  "seventy  weeks"  of  years.  ^ 

These  seventy  weeks,  moreover,  were 
divided  thus — 7  +  62  +  i.  The  period  "unto 
Messiah  the  prince "  was  to  be  "  seven 
weeks  and  threescore  and  two  weeks ; " 
and  at  the  close  of  the  middle  era— "after 
the  threescore  and  two  weeks " — Messiah 
was  to  be  "cut  off."  In  other  words,  the 
presentation  and  rejection  of  Messiah  were 
to  be  69  weeks,  or  483  years,  from  the  epoch 
of  the  era. 

The  first  question,  then,  which  claims 
attention  is  the  character  of  the  year  of 
which  this  prophetic  era  is  composed.  Here 
expositor  after  expositor  and  critic  after  critic 
has  held  in  his  hand  the  key  to  the  whole 
problem,   but  has  thrown    it    away   unused. 

1  With  the  Jew  the  effect  of  his  laws  was  "to  render  the 
word  week  capable  of  meaning  a  seven  of  years  almost  as 
naturally  as  a  seven  of  days.  Indeed  the  generality  of  the 
word  would  have  this  effect  at  any  rate.  Hence  its  use  to 
denote  the  latter  in  prophecy  is  not  mere  arbitrary  sym- 
bolism, but  the  employment  of  a  not  unfamiliar  and  easily 
understood  language." — Smith's  Bib.  Did,,  art.  "  Week." 


THE    "seventy    weeks  II7 

All  are  agreed  that  the  "  seventy  weeks " 
of  verse  24  are  seven  times  the  seventy 
years  of  verse  2  ;  if,  then,  the  duration  of 
the  seventy  years  of  the  Desolations  can  be 
ascertained,  the  problem  is  solved. 

Seventy  years  was  the  appointed  dura- 
tion of  the  Servitude  to  Babylon.^  But  the 
stubborn  refusal  of  the  people  to  submit  to 
that  judgment,^  or  to  profit  by  the  further 
chastisement  of  the  Captivity,  which  followed 
eight  or  nine  years  afterwards,  brought  on 
them  the  terrible  scourge  of  the  Desolations.^ 
The  essential  element  in  this  last  judgment 
was  not  merely  ruined  cities,  but  a  land  laid 
desolate  by  a  hostile  invasion,  the  effects 
of  which  were  perpetuated  by  famine  and 
pestilence,  the  continuing  proofs  of  the 
Divine  displeasure. "*  The  Desolations,  there- 
fore, were  reckoned  from  the  day  the  capital 

^  Jer.  xxix.  lo,  and  note  the  R.V.  "/^r  (not  at)  Babylon." 
The  figment  of  a  seventy  years'  captivity,  though  so  gene- 
rally held,  is  a  blunder.  The  Captivity  lasted  only  sixty-two 
years. 

2  Jer.  xxvii.  6,  17  ;  xxviii.  14. 

3  This  was  foretold  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  after 
the  Servitude  had  began  (Jer.  xxv.  i-ii). 

■*  Jer.  xxvii.  13  ;  Hag.  ii.  17. 


Il8  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICs'    DEN 

was  invested,  the  loth  day  of  the  loth  month 
in  the  ninth  year  of  Zedekiah.^  This  was  the 
epoch  of  the  judgment  as  revealed  to  the 
prophet  Ezekiel  in  his  exile  ;^  and  for  four- 
and-twenty  centuries  it  has  been  observed 
as  a  fast  by  the  Jews  in  every  land. 

As  an  interval  of  seventeen  years  elapsed 
between  the  epoch  of  the  Servitude  and  that 
of  the  Desolations,  so  by  seventeen  years 
the  second  period  overlapped  the  first.  And 
this  explains  the  seemingly  inexplicable  fact 
that  a  few  refractory  Samaritans  were  allowed 
to  thwart  the  execution  of  the  work  expressly 
ordered  by  the  edict  of  Cyrus.  Until  the 
era  of  the  Desolations  had  run  its  course 
the  Divine  judgment  which  rested  upon  the 
land  vetoed  the  rebuilding  of  the  sacred 
Temple. 

As  the  epoch  of  that  era  is  recorded  with 
absolute  definiteness,  so  also  is  its  close.  It 
ended  upon  the  24th  day  of  the  9th  month 
in  the  second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes  of 

1  2  Kings  XXV.  I  ;  Jer.  Hi.  4.     The  event,  of  course,  put  an 
end  to  all  agricultural  pursuits. 
-  Ezek.  xxiv.  i,  2. 


THE    "SEVENTY   WEEKS  II9 

Persia.  The  reader  will  do  well  here  to 
peruse  the  prophecy  of  Haggai  and  the  first 
chapter  of  Zechariah.  I  will  quote  but  a 
single  sentence  of  each :  "  Then  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  answered  and  said,  O  Lord  of 
hosts,  how  long  wilt  Thou  not  have  mercy 
on  Jerusalem  and  on  the  cities  of  Judah, 
against  which  Thou  hast  had  indignation 
these  threescore  and  ten  years ?"^  "Con- 
sider now  from  this  day  and  upward,  from 
the  four-and-twentieth  day  of  the  ninth 
month,  even  from  the  day  that  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Lord's  temple  was  laid,  consider 
it.  .  .  .  From  this  day  will  I  bless  yoti"  ^ 

Now  the  Julian  date  of  the  loth  day 
of  the  loth  month  in  the  ninth  year  of 
Zedekiah  was  the  15th  December,  B.C. 
589 ;  and  that  of  the  24th  day  of  the 
9th  month  in  the  second  year  of  Darius 
Hystaspes  was  the  17th  December,  B.C. 
520.  The  intervening  period,  therefore, 
was  exactly  sixty-nine  years.  But  sixty- 
nine  years  contain  25,200  days,  the  precise 

^  Zech.  i.  12. 

^  Hag.  ii.  18,  19;   compare  Ezra  iv.  24  ;  v.  1,2. 


I20  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

equivalent  of  seventy  years  of  360  days.^ 
It  is  clear,  therefore,  that,  as  the  era  of 
the  Desolations  was  a  Divine  judgment 
upon  Judah,  the  period  was  measured  with 
all  the  accuracy  of  a  judicial  sentence. 

Even  if  this  stood  alone  it  would  be 
conclusive.  But,  further,  we  are  expressly 
told  that  the  era  of  the  Desolations  was 
fixed  at  seventy  years,  because  of  the 
neglect  of  the  Sabbatic  years. ^  Therefore 
we  might  expect  to  find  that  a  period  of 
70  X  7  years,  measured  back  from  the 
end  of  the  Desolations,  would  bring  us  to 
the  time  when  Israel  entered  into  their 
full   national    privileges,   and   thus    incurred 

^  365^x69  =  25,200,  and  360x70  =  25,200.  I  may  here 
explain  that  in  giving  historical  dates  I  follow  secular 
historians  and  chronologists,  and  not  writers  on  prophecy, 
who  are  too  prone  to  "cook"  the  chronology  to  suit  their 
schemes  of  interpretation.  In  the  above  instance  I  follow 
Clinton,  but  with  this  difference — that  he  wrote  in  ignorance 
of  the  Mishna  rule  that  a  king's  reign  was  always  reckoned 
from  Nisan  (see  App.  IV.,  post).  The  thirty-seventh  year 
of  the  Captivity,  reckoned  from  the  eighth  year  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, was  the  first  year  of  Evil-Merodach  (2  Kings 
XXV.  27),  i.e.  561,  and  that  date  fixes  the  whole  chronology, 
as  Clinton  shows  {Fasti  Hel.,  vol.  i.  p.  319).  Zedekiah's 
reign,  therefore,  dates  from  Nisan,  B.C.  597,  and  not  598. 

2  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21  ;  cf.  Lev.  xxvi.  34,  35. 


THE    "seventy    weeks"  12  1 

their  full  responsibilities.  And  such,  in 
fact,  will  be  found  to  be  the  case.  From 
the  year  after  the  dedication  of  Solomon's 
temple  to  the  year  before  the  foundation 
of  the  second  temple  was  a  period  of  490 
years  of  360  days.^ 

But  even  this  is  not  all.  No  one  doubts 
that  the  visions  of  the  Revelation  refer  to 
the  visions  of  Daniel,  and  for  this  purpose 
they  may  be  read  together.  And  there 
we  find  a  part  of  the  prophetic  era  sub- 
divided into  the  days  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed. Half  of  one  week  of  the  vision 
is  twice  described  as  forty-two  months ;  ^ 
and  twice  as  1260  days.^  But  1260  days 
are  exactly  equal  to  forty-two  months  of 
thirty  days,  or  three  and  a  half  years  of 
360  days. 

To  English  ears  the  suggestion  may  seem 
fanciful   that  a  chronoloo;-ical  era  should  be 

1  The  temple  was  dedicated  in  the  eleventh  year  of 
Solomon  (B.C.  1005).  The  Desolations  ended,  as  above 
stated,  in  the  second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes  (B.C.  520). 
The  intervening  period,  reckoned  exclusively^  was  483  years, 
or  70  X  7  luni-solar  years  of  360  days. 

2  Rev.  xi.  2  ;  xiii.  5. 
2  Rev.  xi.  3  ;  xii.  6. 


122  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

reckoned  thus  in  luni-solar  years.  But  it 
was  not  so  with  those  for  whom  the  prophecy- 
was  given.  Such,  it  is  reasonably  certain, 
was  the  form  of  year  then  in  use  both  at 
Babylon  and  at  Jerusalem.  Such  was  in 
fact  the  year  of  the  Noachian  age.^  Tradi- 
tion testifies  that  it  was  the  year  which 
Abraham  knew  in  his  Chaldean  home,  and 
which  was  afterwards  preserved  in  his  family. 
And  Sir  Isaac  Newton  avers  that 

"All  nations,  before  the  just  length  of  the  solar 
year  was  known,  reckoned  months  by  the  course 
of  the  moon,  and  years  by  the  return  of  winter 
and  summer,  spring  and  autumn ;  and  in  making 
calendars  for  their  festivals,  they  reckoned  thirty 
days  to  a  lunar  month,  and  twelve  lunar  months 
to  a  year,  taking  the  nearest  round  numbers, 
whence  came  the  division  of  the  ecliptic  into  360 
degrees." 

And  in  quoting  this  statement.  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis  declares  that 

"All  credible  testimony  and  all  antecedent  proba- 
bility lead  to  the  result  that  a  solar  year  containing 

^  150  days  being  specified  as  the  interval  between  the 
17th  day  of  the  2nd  month  and  the  17th  day  of  the  7th 
month  (Gen.  vii.  11  ;  viii.  3,  4). 


THE    "SEVENTY    WEEKS  1 23 

twelve  lunar  months,  determined  within  certain 
limits  of  error,  has  been  generally  recognised  by 
the  nations  adjoining  the  Mediterranean  from  a 
remote  antiquity."  ^ 

In  view  of  all  this  mass  of  cumulative 
proof,  the  conclusion  may  be  regarded  as 
raised  above  the  sphere  of  controversy  or 
doubt,  that  the  prophetic  year  is  not  the 
Julian  year  of  365^  days,  but  the  ancient 
year  of  360  days. 

*  Astronomy  of  the  Ancients,  ch.  i.  §  7. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE    FULFILMENT    OF    THE    VISION    OF    THE 

" WEEKS  " 

In  view  of  the  proofs  adduced  in  the  preced- 
ing chapter,  it  may  now  be  accepted  as  a 
demonstrated  fact  that  the  unit  of  the  pro- 
phetic era  of  the  seventy  weeks  is  the  luni- 
solar  year  of  the  ancient  world.  Our  next 
inquiry  must  be  directed  to  ascertaining  the 
epoch  of  that  era. 

The  language  of  the  vision  is  simple  and 
clear :  "  From  the  going  forth  of  the  com- 
mandment to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem 
unto  Messiah  the  Prince,  shall  be  seven 
weeks  and  threescore  and  two  weeks."  Here 
at  least  we  might  suppose  that  no  question 
could  arise.  But  with  Professor  Driver,  fol- 
lowing the  lead  of  the  wildest  and  worst  of 
the  foreign  sceptical  expositors,  "the  com- 
mandment  to   rebuild  Jerusalem "   becomes 

the  prophecy  that  Jerusalem  would  be  rebuilt  ; 

124 


FULFILMENT    OF    THE    PROPHECY  1 25 

"  Messiah,  the  Prince  "  becomes  Cyrus,  King 
of  Persia  ;  ^  and  by  a  false  punctuation  which 
divides  the  sentence  in  the  middle,"  the 
sixty-two  weeks  become  the  period  for  which 
the  city  was  to  be  restored.  I  appeal  to  the 
reader  to  reject  this  nightmare  system  of 
interpretation,  and  to  follow  the  early  fathers 
and  the  best  of  the  modern  expositors  in 
accepting  the  words  in  their  plain  and  natural 
meaning. 

What  then  was  the  "commandment,"  or 
edict,  ox  firman  to  build  Jerusalem.-*  The 
Book  of  Ezra  records  three  several  decrees 
of  Persian  kings,  relating  to  the  Jews.  The 
opening  verses  record  the  edict  of  Cyrus, 
which  authorised  the  return  of  the  exiles. 
But  this  decree  mentioned  only  the  temple 
and  not  the  city  ;  and  moreover  it  referred 
to  the  era  of  the  Servitude,  and  not  of  the 
Desolations,  which  later  era  it  was  that 
Daniel    had    in    view.^     The    sixth   chapter 

1  Albeit  the  vision  was  given  in  538  B.C.,  and  the  restora- 
tion under  Cyrus  was  in  536  ! 

2  See  Appendix  IIL,  p.  167. 

^  Canon  Rawlinson  assumes  that  the  temple  was  fifteen 
years  in  building  {Five  Great  Men,  iv.  398).  But  this  is 
vetoed  by  Scripture.     Ezra  iii.  8-1 1  records  that  the  founda- 


126  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

records  a  decree  issued  by  Darius  Hys- 
taspes  to  confirm  the  decree  of  Cyrus, 
but  this  in  no  way  extended  the  scope 
of  the  earHer  edict.  The  seventh  chapter 
records  a  third  decree,  issued  by  Artax- 
erxes  Longimanus  in  his  seventh  year, 
but  this  again  related  merely  to  the  temple 
and  its  worship.^  The  Book  of  Ezra  there- 
fore will  be  searched  in  vain  for  what  we 
seek,  but  the  book  which  follows  it  gives  it 
fully  and  explicitly. 

The  Book  of  Nehemiah  opens  by  relating 
that  while  at  Susa,  where  he  was  in  attend- 
ance as  cupbearer  to  the  king,  "  an  honour 
of  no  small  account  in  Persia,"^  he  learned 
from  certain  of  his  brethren  who  had  just 
arrived  from  Judea  that  the  Jews  there  were 
"  in  great  affliction  and  reproach  ;  "  "  the  wall 
of  Jerusalem  also  was  broken  down,  and  the 
gates  thereof  were  burned  with  fire."  ^  The 
next  chapter  relates  that  while  discharging 

tion  was  then  laid,  but  though  the  altar  was  set  up  and 
sacrifices  renewed  (iii.  3,  6),  the  foundation  was  again  laid 
fifteen  years  later,  for  not  a  stone  of  the  house  had  yet  been 
placed  (Hag.  ii.  10,  15,  18). 

1  Ezra  vii.  19,  27.  ^  Herodotus^  iii.  34. 

3  Neh.  i.  2,  3. 


FULFILMENT    OF    THE    PROPHECY  12/ 

the  duties  of  his  high  office,  Artaxerxes 
noticed  his  distress,  and  called  for  an  expla- 
nation of  it.  "  Let  the  king  live  for  ever," 
Nehemiah  answered,  "  why  should  not  my 
countenance  be  sad,  when  the  city,  the  place 
of  my  fathers'  sepulchres,  lieth  waste,  and  the 
gates  thereof  are  burned  with  fire  ?  "  "  For 
what  dost  thou  make  request?"  the  king  de- 
manded. To  which  Nehemiah  answered, 
"That  thou  wouldest  send  me  unto  Judah, 
unto  the  city  of  my  fathers'  sepulchres,  that 
I  MAY  BUILD  IT."  ^  Artaxerxes  forthwith 
granted  the  petition,  and  issued  an  edict  to 
give  effect  to  it.  This  occurred  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Jewish  year ;  and  before  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  in  the  seventh  month, 
Jerusalem  was  once  more  a  city,  enclosed  by 
gates  and  ramparts. 

Of  course  there  must  have  been  many 
streets  of  inhabited  houses  in  Jerusalem  ever 
since  the  first  return  of  the  exiles.  But, 
as  Dr.  Tregelles  justly  says,^  "the  very 
existence  of  the  place  as  a  city  depended 
upon  such  a  decree  "  as  that  of  the  twentieth 

1  Neh.  ii.  5.  2  Daiiiel,  p,  98. 


128  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

year  of  Artaxerxes.  Once,  at  an  earlier 
period,  work  which  the  Jews  were  executing 
under  the  decree  of  Cyrus  had  been  stopped 
on  the  false  charge  that  its  design  was  to 
restore  the  city.  "A  rebellious  city"  it  had 
ever  proved,  the  local  officials  declared  in 
reporting  to  the  king;  and  they  added,  "//" 
this  city  be  builded^  and  the  walls  thereof  set 
up  again,  by  this  means  thou  shalt  have  no 
portion  on  this  side  the  river."  ^  The  edict 
of  Cyrus  was  in  keeping  with  the  general 
policy  of  toleration,  to  which  the  inscriptions 
bear  testimony :  it  was  a  wholly  different 
matter  to  allow  the  conquered  race  to  set  up 
again  the  famous  fortifications  of  Jerusalem, 
and  to  restore  under  Nehemiah  the  old  polity 
of  the  Judges.  This  was  a  revival  of  the 
political  existence  of  Judah  ;  and  therefore 
no  doubt  it  was  that  the  event  was  divinely 
chosen  as  the  beginning  of  the  prophetic 
era  of  the  seventy  weeks.^ 

^  i.e.  Euphrates.     Ezra  iv.  16-22. 

2  For  the  same  reason,  e.g.,  the  "  Servitudes "  were 
ignored  in  reckoning  the  time  of  Israel's  national  respon- 
sibilities (see  p.  90,  ante). 

This  sudden  change  in  the  policy  of  the  Persian  court  was 


FULFILMENT    OF   THE    PROPHECY  1 29 

It  is  certain,  moreover,  that  this  edict  of 
Artaxerxes  is  the  only  **  commandment  to 
restore  and  build  Jerusalem"  recorded  in 
history,  and  that  under  this  "  command- 
ment" Jerusalem  was  in  fact  rebuilt.  Un- 
less, therefore,  the  nightmare  system  of 
interpretation  must  prevail,  we  may  accept 
it,  not  as  a  plausible  theory  or  a  happy 
guess,  but  as  a  definite  fact,  that  the  seventy 
weeks  are  to  be  computed  from  the  date  of 
the  issuing  of  this  decree. 

The  date  of  it  is  expressly  recorded 
by  Nehemiah.  It  was  made  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Jewish  year  in  the  twentieth 
year  of  the  king's  reign.  And  the  Julian 
date  of  the  first  Nisan  in  the  twentieth 
year  of  Artaxerxes  is  the  14th  March  b.c. 
445.^  Here  let  me  quote  the  words  of  the 
vision  once  again.  "  From  the  going  forth 
of  the  commandment  to   restore  and   build 


not  due  merely  to  the  influence  of  a  popular  minister.  In 
his  History  of  the  Jews,  Dean  Milman  accounts  for  it  by 
"the  foreign  history  of  the  times."  The  terms  imposed  on 
Persia  by  the  victorious  Athenians  seem  to  have  rendered 
it  important  to  make  Jerusalem  a  fortified  city. 
^  See  App.  v.,  p.  i'](),post. 

I 


I30  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

Jerusalem  unto  Messiah  the  Prince  shall  be 
seven  weeks  and  threescore  and  two  weeks. 
.  .  .  And  after  the  threescore  and  two  weeks 
shall  the  Messiah  be  cut  off."  ^ 

If,  therefore,  the  vision  be  a  Divine  pro- 
phecy, an  era  of  "  sixty-nine  weeks,"  that  is, 
of  483  prophetic  years,  reckoned  from  the 
14th  March  B.C.  445,  should  close  with  the 
public  presentation  and  death  of  "  Messiah 
the  Prince." 

No  student  of  the  Gospels  can  fail  to  see 
that  the  Lord's  last  visit  to  Jerusalem  was  not 
only  in  fact  but  in  intention  the  crisis  of  His 
ministry.  From  the  time  that  the  accredited 
leaders  of  the  nation  had  rejected  His  Mes- 
sianic claims,  He  had  avoided  all  public 
recoofnition  of  those  claims.  But  now  His 
testimony  had  been  fully  given,  and  the 
purpose  of  His  entry  into  the  capital  was  to 
openly  proclaim  His  Messiahship  and  to  re- 
ceive His  doom.  Even  His  apostles  them- 
selves had  again  and  again  been  charged  that 

^  Not  "  after  sixty-two  weeks  " — which  might  mean  sixty- 
two  weeks  reckoned  from  the  beginning  of  the  era — but 
*'  after  the  sixty-two  weeks "  which  follow  the  seven  :  i.e.  at 
the  close  of  the  sixty-ninth  week  of  the  era. 


FULFILMENT    OF    THE    PROPHECY  I3I 

they  should  not  make  Him  known  ;  but  now 
He  accepted  the  acclamations  of  "  the  whole 
multitude  of  the  disciples."  And  when  the 
Pharisees  protested,  He  silenced  them  with 
the  indignant  rebuke,  "  I  tell  you  that  if 
these  should  hold  their  peace  the  stones 
would  immediately  cry  out."^  These  words 
can  only  mean  that  the  divinely  appointed 
time  had  arrived  for  the  public  announce- 
ment of  His  Messiahship,  and  that  the  Divine 
purpose  could  not  be  thwarted. 

The  full  significance  of  the  words  which 
follow  is  lost  in  our  Authorised  Version.  As 
the  cry  was  raised  by  His  disciples,  "  Ho- 
sanna  to  the  Son  of  David,  blessed  is  the 
King  of  Israel  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,"  He  looked  off  towards  the  Holy 
City  and  exclaimed,  **  If  thou  also  hadst 
known,  even  on  this  day,  the  :hings  that 
belong  to  thy  peace — but  now  they  are  hid 
from  thine  eyes !  "  ^     The  nation  had  already 

^  Luke  xix.  39,  40. 

2  R.V.  reads,  "  If  thou  hadst  known  in  this  day"  ;  A.V. 
reads,  "  this  thy  day."     Alford's  note  is,  "  thou  also,  as  well 
as  these  My  disciples."     And  so  also  the  Speaker's  Coin 
mentary. 


132  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

rejected  Him,  but  this  was  the  fateful  day 
when  their  decision  must  be  irrevocable. 
And  we  are  expressly  told  that  it  was  the  ful- 
filment of  the  prophecy,  "Shout,  O  daughter 
of  Jerusalem  ;  behold  thy  King  cometh  unto 
thee."^  It  was  the  only  occasion  on  which 
His  kingly  claims  were  publicly  announced. 
And  no  other  day  in  all  His  ministry  will 
satisfy  the  words  of  Daniel's  vision.^ 

And  the  date  of  that  first  "  Palm  Sunday  " 
can  be  ascertained  with  certainty.  No  year 
in  the  whole  field  of  ancient  history  is  more 
definitely  indicated  than  that  of  the  begin- 
ning of  our  Lord's  public  ministry.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Evangelist  it  was  "the  fifteenth 
year  of  Tiberius  Caesar."^  Now  "the  reign 
of  Tiberius,  as  beginning  from  19th  August, 
A.D.  14,  was  as  well  known  a  date  in  the  time 
of  Luke  as  the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria  is  in 


*  Zech.  ix.  9  ;  Matt.  xxi.  4,  5. 

2  The  only  other  possible  day  would  be  either  the  day  of 
His  birth  or  the  first  day  of  His  public  ministry.  But  neither 
date  is  recorded.  As  regards  the  nativity,  the  only  thing 
reasonably  certain  is,  that  it  occurred  neither  in  the  year 
nor  on  the  day  to  which  it  is  popularly  assigned. 

^  Luke  iii.  i. 


FULFILMENT    OF    THE    PROPHECY  1 33 

our  own  day."^  The  Evangelist,  moreover, 
with  a  prophetic  anticipation  of  the  perverse- 
ness  of  expositors  and  "  reconcilers,"  goes 
on  to  name  six  prominent  public  men  as 
holding  specified  positions  in  the  fifteenth 
year  of  Tiberius,  and  each  one  of  these  is 
known  to  have  actually  held  the  position 
thus  assigned  to  him  in  the  year  in  question. 

As,  therefore,  the  first  Passover  of  the 
Lord's  ministry  was  that  of  Nisan,  a.d.  29, 
the  date  of  the  Passion  is  thus  fixed  by 
Scripture  itself.  For  it  is  no  longer  neces- 
sary to  offer  proof  that  the  crucifixion  took 
place  at  the  fourth  Passover  of  the  ministry. 
According  to  the  Jewish  custom,  our  Lord 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  on  the  8th  Nisan,^ 
which,  as  we  know,  fell  that  year  upon  a 
Friday.  And  having  spent  the  Sabbath 
at  Bethany,  He  entered  the  Holy  City 
the  following  day,  as  recorded  in  the 
Gospels. 

The  Julian  date  of  that   loth  Nisan  was 

^  Lewin,  Fasti  Sacri,  p.  liii.  He  adds,  "  And  no  single 
case  can  be  produced  in  which  the  years  of  Tiberius  were 
reckoned  in  any  other  manner." 

2  John  xi.  55,  xii.  i  ;  Josephus,  Wars,  vi.  5,  3. 


134  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

Sunday  the  6th  April,  a.d.  32.^  What  then 
was  the  length  of  the  period  intervening  be- 
tween the  issuing  of  the  decree  to  rebuild 
Jerusalem  and  this  public  advent  of  "  Messiah 
the  Prince" — between  the  14th  March,  B.C. 
445,  and  the  6th  April,  a.d.  32  ?  The  inter- 
val WAS  EXACTLY  AND  TO  THE  VERY  DAY 
173,880  DAYS,  OR  SEVEN  TIMES  SIXTY-NINE 
PROPHETIC  YEARS  OF  360  DAYS.^ 

1  See  Appendices  IV.,  p.  171  and  VI.,  p.  iy6,post. 

^  From  B.C.  445  to  A.D.  32  is  476  years  =  173,740  days 
(476  X  365)+  116  days  for  leap  years.  And  from  14th  March 
to  6th  April  (reckoned  inclusively  according  to  Jewish  prac- 
tice) is  24  days.  But  173,740+116  +  24=173,880.  And  69 
X7X  360=173,880. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  here  that  in  reckoning  years 
from  B.C.  to  A.D.  one  year  must  always  be  omitted  ;  for,  of 
course,  the  interval  between  B.C.  i  and  A.D.  i  is  not  two 
years  but  one  year.  In  fact  B.C.  i  ought  to  be  called  B.C.  o  ; 
and  it  is  so  described  by  astronomers,  with  whom  B.C.  445  is 
—  444  (see  App.V.,  p.  ij/\,posf).  And  again,  as  the  Julian  year 
is  1 1  m.  10.46  s.,  or  about  the  129th  part  of  a  day,  longer  than 
the  mean  solar  year,  the  Julian  calendar  has  three  leap  years 
too  many  in  every  four  centuries.  This  error  is  corrected  by 
the  Gregorian  reform,  which  reckons  three  secular  years  out 
of  four  as  common  years.  For  instance,  1700,  1800,  and  1900 
were  common  years,  and  2000  will  be  a  leap  year. 


CHAPTER   X 

SUMMARY    AND    CONCLUSION 

It  will  be  obvious  to  the  intelligent  and 
thoughtful  that  unless  the  conclusions  re- 
corded in  the  preceding  chapter  can  in  some 
way  be  disproved  or  got  rid  of,  there  is 
an  end  of  the  Daniel  controversy.  The 
reader,  therefore,  will  be  interested  to  know 
what  reply  Professor  Driver  has  to  give 
to  them. 

After  noticing  the  solution  of  the  Seventy 
Weeks  proposed  by  Julius  Africanus,  the 
father  of  Christian  chronologers,^  he  pro- 
ceeds : — 

"This  view  has  been  revived  recently,  in  a 
slightly  modified  form,  by  Dr.  Robert  Anderson, 
according  to  whom  the  'year'  of  Daniel  was  the 
ancient  luni-solar  year  of  360  days ;  reckoning, 
then,  483  years  (  =  69  'weeks'),  of  360  days  each, 
from   I    Nisan,   B.C.  445,   the  date  of  the  edict  of 

1  About  A.D.  200. 
135 


136  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS*    DEN 

Artaxerxes,  Dr.  Anderson  arrives  at  the  lOth  of 
Nisan  in  the  i8th  year  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  the  day  on 
which  our  Lord  made  His  pubhc  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem (Luke  xix.  37  ff.).  Upon  this  theory,  how- 
ever, even  supposing  the  objections  against  B.C.  445 
as  the  terminus  a  quo  to  be  waived,  the  seventieth 
week  remains  unexplained." 

There  is  one  objection,  I  admit,  to  the  B.C. 
445  date  ;  it  violates  the  canon  of  interpreta- 
tion, that  Scripture  never  means  what  it  says  ! 
But  waiving  that  point,  the  only  criticism 
which  the  highest  scholarship  has  to  offer 
upon  my  scheme  is  that  it  leaves  the  seven- 
tieth week  "unexplained." 

This  objection  would  be  irrelevant  even  if 
it  were  well  founded.  But  as  a  matter  of 
fact  the  book  to  which  Dr.  Driver  refers 
his  readers  deals  fully  and  in  much  detail 
with  the  seventieth  week.^  One  of  the 
blunders  of  this  controversy  is  that  of  sup- 

^  His  reference  is  to  The  Coming  Prince,  or  the  Seventy 
Weeks  of  Daniel,  5th  ed.  The  first  edition  of  the  book 
appeared  in  1881  :  the  sixth  is  now  current.  The  scheme 
has  thus  been  before  the  pubHc  for  twenty  years  ;  and  during 
that  time  every  detail  of  it  has  been  subjected  to  the  most 
searching  criticism,  both  here  and  in  America  ;  but  neither 
error  nor  flaw  has  been  detected  in  it. 


SUMMARY    AND    CONCLUSION  I  37 

posing  that  the  era  of  the  seventy  weeks 
was  to  end  either  with  the  advent  or  the 
death  of  Christ.  Here  the  language  of 
Daniel  is  explicit :  the  period  "  unto  Messiah 
the  Prince "  was  to  be,  not  seventy  weeks, 
but  sixty-nine  weeks.  The  crucifixion  is 
the  event  which  marks  the  end  of  the  sixty- 
ninth  week ;  the  seventieth  week  ends  with 
the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  prosperity  and 
blessing.  Those  who  regard  that  week  as 
cancelled  hold  an  intelligible  position.  And 
the  same  may  be  said  of  those  who  maintain 
that  it  still  awaits  fulfilment.  But  the  fig- 
ment that  a  prophecy  of  temporal  and  spiri- 
tual good  for  the  Jews  was  fulfilled  by  their 
rejection  and  ruin  is  one  of  the  very  wildest 
vagaries  of  interpretation.^ 

Upon  this  point  three  different  opinions 
prevail.  By  some  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews  is  dismissed  as  a  dream  of  Hebrew 
poetry.       Others   consider   that   the   Jewish 

1  Another  amazing  vagary  of  the  same  type  is  that  Dan. 
ix.  27  means  that  our  Lord  made  some  sort  of  seven  years' 
covenant  with  the  Jews  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry, 
and  that  it  was  broken  by  His  death.  See  The  Coming 
Prince^  ch.  xiv.,  and  especially  pp.  182,   183. 


138  DANIEL   IN    THE    CRITICs'    DEN 

promises  were  finally  forfeited  by  the  rejec- 
tion of  Christ,  and  now  belong  to  the  Gen- 
tile Church.  And  others  again  are  bold 
enough  to  believe  that  God  will  make  good 
every  promise  and  every  prophecy  the  Bible 
contains,  but  that  the  realisation  of  the  dis- 
tinctive blessings  of  the  favoured  nation  is 
postponed  until  the  close  of  this  Gentile  dis- 
pensation. I  am  not  ashamed  to  rank  my- 
self in  this  third  category  ;  and  following  the 
teaching  of  the  Anti-Nicene  Fathers — for 
this  is  precisely  the  sort  of  question  as  to 
which  apostolic  tradition  is  least  likely  to 
have  been  corrupted — to  hold  that  the  seven- 
tieth week,  and  the  events  pertaining  to  it, 
belong  to  the  future. 

But  what  bearing  has  all  this  upon  the 
point  at  issue  ?  The  question  here  is  whether 
the  vision  of  the  seventy  weeks  was  a  mere 
human  prediction  or  a  Divine  prophecy. 
The  popular  view  of  the  matter  appears  to 
be  that,  as  the  advent  of  Christ  was  expected 
about  the  time  when  He  actually  appeared, 
there  was  nothing  extraordinary  in  a  chrono- 
logical forecast  of  the  event.     But  this  be- 


SUMMARY    AND    CONCLUSION  1 39 

trays  a  strange  misconception  and  confusion 
of  thought. 

True  it  is  that  the  advent  of  their  Messiah 
was  a  hope  universally  cherished  by  the  Jews 
— a  fact  which,  as  I  have  urged,  proves  the 
error  and  folly  of  denying  the  Messianic 
interpretation  of  the  9th  of  Daniel.  But  if 
His  coming  was  expected  nineteen  centuries 
ago,  the  hope  was  based  on  these  very 
visions.  For,  apart  from  Daniel,  Scripture 
contains  no  hint  of  a  time  limit  within  which 
the  advent  was  to  take  place.  Apart  from 
Daniel,  indeed,  the  theory  was  plausible 
that  it  would  herald  the  dawn  of  the  seventh 
millennium  of  the  world's  history — an  epoch 
which,  by  the  Jewish  calendar,  is  even  now 
in  the  distant  future.  But  here  is  a  book 
which  specifies  the  precise  date  of  the 
presentation  and  death  of  Christ,  and  the 
prediction  has  been  fulfilled.  Had  it  been 
fulfilled  within  the  year,  the  result  might  well 
stagger  unbelief.  And  if  the  apparent  margin 
of  error  had  been  a  month,  the  explana- 
tion would  be  obvious  and  adequate,  that 
Nehemiah  does  not   record  the   day  of  the 


140  DANIEL   IN    THE   CRITICS     DEN 

month  on  which  the  edict  was  signed/  But, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  fulfilled  with 
absolute  accuracy,  and  to  the  very  day. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  ignore  the  controversy 
about  the  date  of  Daniel — whether  in  the 
second  century  B.C.,  or  in  the  sixth,  and 
confine  our  attention  to  this  simple  issue  : 
Could  the  prediction  have  been  a  mere  guess 
by  some  learned  and  pious  Jew  ?  If  we  refer 
this  question  to  a  mathematician  he  will  ask 
what  data  there  were  to  work  upon  ;  and  on 
hearing  that  there  were  none,  he  will  tell  us 
that  in  such  circumstances  the  chance  of 
accuracy  would  be  so  small,  and  the  pro- 
bability of  error  so  great,  that  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other  could  be  expressed 
arithmetically  in  figures.  The  calculation, 
in  fact,  would  become  lost  in  infinity.     And 


^  1  would  not  be  understood  as  urging  this.  I  presume 
the  banquet  at  which  the  edict  was  issued  took  place  on 
New  Year's  day.  Nehemiah  began  to  build  the  walls  on 
the  third  day  of  the  fifth  month  (Neh.  vi.  15).  Ezra's 
journey  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem  occupied  precisely  four 
months  (Ezra  vii.  9),  and  in  "  the  unchanging  east " 
Nehemiah's  journey  from  Susa  would  have  occupied  as 
long.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  he  set  out  in  the  beginning 
of  Nisan. 


SUMMARY   AND    CONCLUSION  I4I 

this  being  so,  any  attempt  to  dismiss  the  facts 
and  figures  set  forth  in  the  preceding  chapter 
as  being  accidental  coincidences  is  not  intel- 
ligent scepticism,  but  a  crass  misbelief  which 
is  sheer  credulity. 

And  this  brings  us  back  again  to  the 
question,  What  is  the  character,  and  what 
the  credentials,  of  the  book  which  contains 
this  most  marvellous  vision  ?  The  critics 
themselves  admit  that  the  authority  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel  was  unchallenged  by  Jews 
and  Christians  alike  for  at  least  two  thousand 
years.  It  was  not  that  the  question  of  its 
claims  was  never  raised ;  for  Porphyry  the 
Neo-Platonist  devoted  to  the  subject  one  of 
his  discourses  ag-ainst  the  Christians.  But 
Porphyry's  attack  evoked  no  response  in 
the  Christian  camp  until  modern  German  in- 
fidelity began  its  crusade  against  the  Bible. 
The  visions  of  Daniel  afforded  an  un- 
answerable testimony  to  the  reality  of  in- 
spiration, and  their  voice  had  to  be  silenced. 
No  matter  to  what  date  the  53rd  chapter 
of  Isaiah  be  assigned,  the  sceptics  would 
reject   the    Messianic    interpretation    of    it. 


142  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

But  if  it  can  be  proved  that  the  visions  of 
Daniel  were  written  in  the  sixth  century 
B.C.,  scepticism  becomes  an  impossible  atti- 
tude of  mind.  Therefore,  a  propagandism 
designed  to  degrade  the  Bible  to  the  level  of 
a  human  book  found  it  essential  to  prove 
that  Daniel  was  written  after  the  events  it 
professed  to  predict. 

To  attain  this  end  all  the  great  erudition 
and  patient  subtlety  for  which  German 
scholarship  is  justly  famed,  were  prostituted 
without  reserve ;  and  the  attack  of  the 
apostates  was  an  immense  advance  upon 
the  attack  of  the  Pagan.  "Apostates,"  I 
say  advisedly,  for  in  its  origin  and  purpose 
the  movement  was  essentially  anti-Christian. 
In  course  of  time,  however,  men  who  had  no 
sympathy  with  the  aims  of  the  rationalists 
were  led  to  adopt  their  conclusions  ;  and  in 
our  own  day  the  sinister  origin  of  the  move- 
ment is  in  danger  of  being  forgotten.  Its 
obtaining  recruits  among  English  scholars  of 
repute  is  a  matter  within  living  memory. 

First,  then,  we  have  the  fact  that  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  regarded  as  a  classic,  is  a 


SUMMARY    AND    CONCLUSION  1 43 

work  of  the  very  highest  character,  and  that 
the  attack  upon  it  originated  in  the  exigencies 
of  modern   rationaHsm.      But  secondly,   the 
critics  admit,  for  the  fact  is  indisputable,  that 
the  Book  of  Daniel  has  entered  more  closely 
into  the  warp  and  woof  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment than  any  other  portion  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures/     And   if  they  do   not  admit  as 
unreservedly  that  it  comes  to   us   expressly 
accredited  by  our  Lord  Himself,  it  is  because 
the  "  Higher  Criticism  "  is  purely  destructive, 
and  therefore  violates  at  times  the  principles 
on    which    all    true    criticism    rests.^       But 
whether  they  admit  it  or  not,  it  is  none  the 
less  certain.     And  as  Keil  justly  says  :   "  This 
testimony  of  our  Lord  fixes  the  seal  of  Divine 
confirmation    on   the   external   and    internal 
evidences  which  prove   the  genuineness  of 
the  book." 

And  in  view  of  these  overwhelming  proofs 
of  its  genuineness,  if  Hebrew  scholars  were 

^  See  p.  68  fif.,  an/e. 

^  In  Matt.  xxiv.  15,  e.^.,  there  is  no  question  of  conflicting 
MSS.  ;  the  words  are  admittedly  quoted  from  Daniel,  and 
the  passage  as  a  whole  unmistakably  refers  to  Daniel  (see 
p.  70,  anfe). 


144  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

agreed  that  its  language  was  not  that  of  the 
sixth  century  B.C.,  but  of  a  later  time,  true 
criticism  would  seek  for  an  explanation  of 
that  fact.  But  even  those  Hebraists  who 
reject  the  book  contradict  one  another  on 
this  very  point ;  and  so  Professor  Driver  falls 
back  on  the  alleged  presence  of  two  Greek 
words  in  the  text  as  settling  the  whole 
question.  But  in  the  circumstances  this  is 
but  a  travesty  of  true  criticism,  and  proves 
nothing  save  the  critic's  want  of  practical 
experience  in  the  art  of  sifting  and  weighing 
evidence.-^ 

The  case  of  the  philologist  having  thus 
collapsed,  the  critic  still  further  shakes  our 
confidence  in  him  by  turning  aside  to  borrow 
from  the  German  rationalists  a  farrago  of 
objections  upon  minor  points.  Some  of 
these  prove  on  inquiry  to  be  either  sheer 
blunders^  or  mere  quibbles,^  and  most  of 
them  are  so  petty  that  no  competent  tribunal 

1  See  pp.  51,  81,  ante. 

2  E.g.,  that  Dan.  i.  i  is  unhistorical  (see  App.  I.,  p.  153, 
post). 

3  E.g..,  the  spelling  of  "Nebuchadnezzar"  (p.  45  n.  ante)., 
and  that  Belshazzar  is  called  his  son  (p.  23,  a7itc). 


SUMMARY    AND    CONCLUSION  1 45 

would  listen  to  them,  save  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  worthy  of  the  name. 

If  any  should  think  that  in  my  reply  to 
Professor  Driver  I  have  treated  these  minor 
points  of  criticism  too  lightly,  I  would  plead 
the  advice  once  given  by  a  great  advocate, 
always  to  ignore  the  petty  details  of  an 
opponent's  evidence  if  his  case  can  be  shat- 
tered on  some  vital  issue.  There  is  not 
one  of  these  difficulties  and  objections  to 
which  I  have  not  given  full  and  fair  con- 
sideration, and  a  reply  to  them  will  be  found 
in  these  pages. '^  But,  I  repeat,  I  am  pre- 
pared to  stake  the  whole  case  for  Daniel  on 
the  two  issues  I  have  specified,  namely,  the 
inclusion  of  the  book  in  the  canon,  and  the 
fulfilment  of  its  great  central  vision  in  Mes- 
sianic times. 

Behind  these  is  the  fact — which  in  itself 
ought  to  satisfy  the  Christian  —  that  the 
book  bears  the  express  impri'matur  of  our 
Divine    Lord.      And  we   have   the    further 

'  To  guard  myself  against  any  charge  on  this  score,  I 
give  a  summary  of  them  in  the  Appendix.  See  Appendix 
VII.,  p.  !"](), post. 

K 


146  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS     DEN 

fact  that  its  visions  are  inseparably  inter- 
woven with  the  Christian  revelation  and 
with  the  whole  scheme  of  unfulfilled  pro- 
phecy. But  this  last  topic  I  do  not  now 
discuss.  These  pages  are  not  addressed 
to  students  of  prophecy,  for  no  student  of 
prophecy  doubts  the  genuineness  of  Daniel. 
But  prophecy  fulfilled  has  a  voice  for  every 
man  ;  and  as  Professor  Driver's  treatise  is 
addressed  to  men  of  the  world  from  their 
own  standpoint,^  I  have  here,  waiving  the 
vantage  ground  of  spiritual  truth,  appealed 
to  the  judgment  of  all  fair  and  reasonable 
men. 

Ptolemy  the  astronomer  was  a  "Higher 
Critic."     The  belief  had  long  prevailed  that 

^  I  do  not  say  this  by  way  of  complaint.  Regarding  the 
Book  of  Daniel  as  no  more  than  a  classic,  he  treats  it,  of 
course,  on  that  footing.  I  recognise  the  difference  between 
what  he  has  written  on  this  subject  and  such  productions, 
e.g.,  as  the  article  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.,  of 
which  he  is  one  of  the  editors  ;  or  the  article  in  Professor 
Cheyne's  rationalistic  Encyclopcedia  Biblica.  Were  Por- 
phyry the  Pagan  to  come  to  life  again  he  might  without 
reserve  put  his  name  to  those  articles,  and  to  many  another 
article  in  both  these  works.  If  this  is  the  sort  of  food  sup- 
plied to  divinity  students  nowadays  it  is  no  wonder  that  so 
many  of  them  either  lapse  to  rationalism  or  take  refuge  in 
the  superstitions  of  mere  religion. 


SUMMARY    AND    CONCLUSION  1 47 

the  sun  was  the  centre  of  our  system  ;  but 
he  had  no  difficulty  in  proving  that  this  tra- 
ditional belief  was  untenable.  Once  he  got 
men  to  consider  the  matter  from  their  own 
standpoint  all  could  see  the  absurdity  of 
supposing  that  the  earth  on  which  they  lived 
and  moved  was  flying  helter-skelter  round 
the  sun.  And  nothing  more  was  needed  but 
to  keep  the  mind  occupied  with  the  many 
apparent  difficulties  of  the  hypothesis  he 
opposed,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  thought  of 
the  few  but  insurmountable  difficulties  of  the 
theory  he  advocated.  The  professors  and 
experts  were  convinced,  the  multitude  fol- 
lowed suit,  and  for  more  than  a  thousand 
years  the  puerilities  of  the  Ptolemaic  System 
held  sway,  with  the  sanction  of  infallible 
science  and  the  blessing  of  an  infallible 
Church. 

The  allegory  is  a  simple  one.  There  is  a 
"  Ptolemaic  System  "  of  studying  the  Bible, 
which  is  now  struggling  for  supremacy. 
Let  us,  following  the  rationalists,  insist  on 
shutting  out  God,  and  dealing  with  the 
Bible    from    the   purely    human    standpoint, 


148  DANIEL    IN    THE    CRITICS'    DEN 

and  then  we  need  but  to  weary  our  minds 
by  the  consideration  of  seeming  difficulties 
of  one  kind,  while  we  ignore  overwhelming 
difficulties  of  another  kind,  and  the  victory 
of  that  false  system  will  be  assured.  For 
the  capacity  of  fairly  considering  both  sides 
of  a  controversy  is  not  common,  and  the 
habit  of  doing  so  is  rare.  Therefore  it  is 
that  the  best  judge  is  not  the  legal  expert, 
but  the  patient,  broad-minded  arbitrator, 
who  will  calmly  hear  both  sides  of  a  case,  and 
then  adjudicate  upon  it  without  prejudice 
or  passion. 

This  brings  me  to  my  closing  appeal ; 
and  I  address  it  specially  to  those  who  are 
accustomed  to  take  part  in  any  capacity 
in  the  proceedings  of  our  courts  of  justice. 
Once  again,  I  ask  them  to  remember  that 
the  question  here  at  issue  is  essentially 
one  for  a  judicial  inquiry,  and  that  if  they 
possess  experience  of  such  inquiries  their 
fitness  for  the  task  is  greater  than  usually 
belongs  to  the  professional  scholar,  how- 
ever eminent.  Philologists  of  high  repute 
will  tell  them   that  the   Book  of  Daniel   is 


SUMMARY   AND    CONCLUSION  1 49 

a  forgery.  Other  philologists  of  equal  fame 
will  assure  them  that  it  is  genuine.  Let 
them  set  the  opinion  of  the  one  set  of 
experts  against  that  of  the  other;  and 
then,  turning  to  consider  the  question  on 
broader  grounds,  let  them  fearlessly  decide  it 
for  themselves,  uninfluenced  by  the  glamour 
of  great  names. 

The  religious  revolt  of  the  sixteenth 
century  rescued  the  Bible  from  the  Priest : 
God  grant  that  the  twentieth  century  may 
bring  a  revolt  which  shall  rescue  it  from 
the  pseudo-critic  and   the  pundit. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX    I 

Nebuchadnezzar's  first  invasion  of  judea 

The  opening  statement  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is 
here  selected  for  special  notice  for  two  reasons. 
First,  because  the  attack  upon  it  would  be  serious, 
if  sustained.  And  secondly  and  chiefly,  because  it 
is  a  typical  specimen  of  the  methods  of  the  critics ; 
and  the  inquiry  may  convince  the  reader  of  their 
unfitness  to  deal  with  any  question  of  evidence.  I 
am  not  here  laying  down  the  law,  but  seeking  to 
afford  materials  to  enable  the  reader  to  form  his 
own  opinion.     Ex  uno  disce  ojnnes. 

Dan.  i.  i  reads :  "  In  the  third  year  of  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah  came  Nebuchadnezzar 
king  of  Babylon  unto  Jerusalem  and  besieged  it." 
The  German  rationalists  denounce  this  statement 
as  a  blunder.  Their  humble  disciples,  the  English 
sceptics,  accept  their  conclusion  and  blindly  repro- 
duce their  arguments.  Dr.  Driver  {inore  sud)  takes  a 
middle  course  and  brands  it  as  "  doubtful  "  {Daniel^ 
pp.  xlviii  and  2).  I  propose  to  show  that  the  state- 
ment is  historically  accurate,  and  that  its  accuracy 
is  established  by  the  strict  test  of  chronology.^ 

^  For  a  complete  and  exhaustive  analysis  of  the  chrono- 
logy I  would  refer  to  the  "  Chronological  Treatise  "  in  The 


Coming  Prince. 


153 


154  APPENDIX    I 

A  reference  to  Rawlinson's  Five  Great  Monarchies 
(vol.  iii.  488-494),  and  to  Clinton's  Fasti  Hellenici, 
will  show  how  thoroughly  consistent  the  sacred 
history  of  this  period  appears  to  the  mind  of  an 
historian  or  a  chronologer,  and  how  completely  it 
harmonises  with  the  history  of  Berosus.  Jerusalem 
was  first  taken  by  the  Chaldeans  in  the  third  year 
of  Jehoiakim.  His  fourth  year  was  current  with 
the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer,  xxv.  i). 
This  accords  with  the  statement  of  Berosus  that 
Nebuchadnezzar's  first  expedition  took  place  before 
his  actual  accession  Qose^hus,  Apion,  i.  19).  Then 
follows  the  statement  quoted  at  p.  17,  ante.  But 
here  we  must  distinguish  between  the  narrative  of 
Josephus,  which  is  full  of  errors,  and  his  quotation 
from  Berosus,  which  is  consistent  and  definite. 
Dr.  Driver  tells  us  that  on  this  expedition,  when 
Nebuchadnezzar  reached  Carchemish,  he  was  con- 
fronted by  the  Egyptian  army,  and  defeated  it  ;  and 
that  then,  on  hearing  of  his  father's  death,  he 
hastened  home  across  the  desert.  That  German 
rationalists  should  have  fallen  into  such  a  gro- 
tesque blunder  as  this,  is  proof  of  the  blind 
malignity  of  their  iconoclastic  zeal  :  that  English 
scholars  should  adopt  it  is  proof  that  they  have 
not  brought  an  independent  judgment  to  bear 
on  this  controversy.  What  Berosus  says  is 
that  when  Nebuchadnezzar  heard  of  his  father's 
death,  "  he  set  the  affairs  of  Egypt  and  the  other 
countries  in  order,  and  committed  the  captives  he 
had  taken  from  the  fews,  and  the  Phoenicians,  and 


FIRST    INVASION    OF    JUDEA  1 55 

Syrians,  and  of  the  nations  belonging  to  Egypt, 
to  some  of  his  friends  .  .  .  while  he  went  in  haste 
over  the  desert  to  Babylon."  Will  the  critics  tell  us 
how  he  could  have  had  Jewish  captives  if  he  had  not 
invaded  Judea ;  how  he  could  have  reached  Egypt 
without  marching  through  Palestine ;  how  he  could 
have  returned  to  Babylon  over  the  desert  if  he  had 
set  out  from  Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates  ! 

One  error  leads  to  another,  and  so  Dr.  Driver 
has  to  impugn  also  the  accuracy  of  Jer.  xlvi.  2 
(which  states  that  the  battle  of  Carchemish  was  in 
Jehoiakim's  fourth  year),  and  further,  to  cook  the 
chronology  of  Jehoiakim's  reign  by  making  his 
regnal  years  date  from  Tishri  (p.  xlix.) — a  blunder 
that  the  Mishna  exposes.  (Treatise,  Rosh  Hasha- 
nah.)  The  regnal  years  of  Jewish  kings  are  always 
reckoned  from  Nisan. 

According  to  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy,  the  reign  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  dates  from  B.C.  604 :  i.e.  his  acces- 
sion was  in  the  year  beginning  the  ist  Thoth  (which 
fell  in  January),  B.C.  604.  But  the  Captivity  began 
in  Nebuchadnezzar's  eighth  year  {cf.  Ezek.  i.  2, 
and  2  Kings  xxiv.  12);  and  in  the  thirty-seventh 
year  of  the  Captivity  Nebuchadnezzar's  successor 
was  on  the  throne  (2  Kings  xxv.  27).  This,  how- 
ever, gives  Nebuchadnezzar  a  reign  of  at  least 
forty-four  years,  whereas  according  to  the  canon 
(and  Berosus  confirms  it)  he  reigned  only  forty- 
three  years.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  Scripture 
antedates  his  reign  and  computes  it  from  B.C.  605. 
(Chnton,  F.  H.,  vol.  i.  p.  367,)     This  might  be  ex- 


156  APPENDIX    I 

plained  by  the  fact  that  the  Jews  acknowledged  him 
as  suzerain  from  that  date.  But  it  has  been  over- 
looked that  it  is  accounted  for  by  the  Mishna  rule  of 
computing  regnal  years  from  Nisan  to  Nisan.  In 
B.C.  604,  the  first  Nisan  fell  on  the  ist  April,  and 
according  to  the  Mishna  rule  the  king's  second 
year  would  begin  on  that  day,  no  matter  how 
recently  he  had  ascended  the  throne.  Therefore 
the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  and  the  first  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer.  xxv.  i)  was  the  year  begin- 
ning Nisan  B.C.  605  ;  and  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim, 
in  which  Jerusalem  was  taken  and  the  Servitude 
began,  was  the  year  beginning  Nisan  B.C.  606. 

This  result  is  confirmed  by  Clinton,  who  fixes  the 
summer  of  B.C.  606  as  the  date  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
first  expedition.  And  it  is  strikingly  confirmed  also 
by  a  statement  in  Daniel  which  is  the  basis  of  one 
of  the  quibbles  of  the  critics  :  Daniel  was  kept  three 
years  in  training  before  he  was  admitted  to  the 
king's  presence,  and  yet  he  interpreted  the  king's 
dream  in  his  second  year  (Dan.  i.  5,  18;  ii.  i). 
The  explanation  is  simple.  While  the  Jews  in 
Palestine  computed  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign  in  their 
own  way,  Daniel,  a  citizen  of  Babylon  and  a  courtier, 
of  course  accepted  the  reckoning  in  use  around  him. 
But  as  the  prophet  was  exiled  in  B.C.  606,  his  three 
years'  probation  ended  in  B.C.  603,  whereas  the 
second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  reckoned  from  his 
actual  accession,  extended  to  the  early  months  of 
B.C.  602. 

Again  :    the  accession  of  Evil-Merodach  was   in 


FIRST    INVASION    OF    JUDEA  1 57 

B.C.  561,  and  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  the  Capti- 
vity was  then  current  (2  Kings  xxv.  27).  There- ' 
fore  the  Captivity  dated  from  the  year  Nisan  598 
to  Nisan  597.  But  this  was  (according  to  Jewish 
reckoning)  the  eighth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (2 
Kings  xxiv.  12).  His  reign,  therefore,  dated  from 
the  year  Nisan  605  to  Nisan  604.  And  the  first 
siege  of  Jerusalem  and  the  beginning  of  the  Servi- 
tude was  in  the  preceding  year,  606-605. 

But  seventy  years  was  the  appointed  duration 
of  the  Servitude  {riot  the  Captivity,  see  p.  21, 
ante).  And  the  Servitude  ended  in  the  first  year  of 
Cyrus,  B.C.  536.  It  nmst  therefore  have  begun  in 
B.C.  606  (the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim),  as  the  Book 
of  Daniel  records. 

That  date,  therefore,  is  the  pivot  on  which  the 
whole  chronology  turns.  On  what  ground  then 
does  Dr.  Driver  impugn  it  ?  Will  it  be  believed 
that  the  only  ground  suggested  is  that  2  Kings 
xxiv.  I,  which  so  definitely  confirms  Daniel,  does 
not  specify  the  particular  year  intended,  and  that 
Jeremiah  xxv.  and  xxxvi.  are  silent  with  regard  to 
the  invasion  of  that  year. 

Let  me  examine  this.  I  open  Jer.  xxv.  to 
find  these  words :  "  The  word  that  came  to 
Jeremiah  ...  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  .  .  . 
that  was  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  king  of 
Babylonr  Now  Jeremiah  had  been  a  prophet  for 
more  than  twenty  years,  yet  till  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  he  never  mentions  Nebuchadnezzar ;  but 
in  that  year  he  fixes  a  date  by  reference  to  his  reign. 


158  APPENDIX    I 

How  is  this  to  be  explained  ?  The  explanation  is 
obvious,  namely  that  by  the  capture  of  Jerusalem, 
the  year  before,  as  recorded  in  Dan.  i.  i,  and  2 
Chron.  xxxvi.  6,  7,  Nebuchadnezzar  had  become 
suzerain.  And  yet  Professor  Driver  tells  us  that 
"  the  invasion  of  Judea  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  the 
three  years'  submission  of  Jehoiakim,  are  certainly 
to  be  placed  after  Jehoiakim's  fourth  year — most 
probably  indeed,  tov^ards  the  close  of  his  reign " 
{Daniel,  p.  2). 

I  now  turn  to  Jer.  xxxvi.  This  chapter  records 
prophecies  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim 
(vers.  I  and  9),  and  it  is  true  that  they  do  not  mention 
an  invasion  before  these  years.  But  the  critic  has 
overlooked  chapter  xxxv.  This  chapter  belongs  to 
the  same  group  as  the  chapter  which  follows  it,  and 
should  of  course  be  assigned  to  a  date  not  later 
than  the  fourth  year  of  the  king.  And  in  this 
chapter  (verse  11)  the  presence  of  the  Rechabites  in 
Jerusalem  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's invasion  had  driven  them  from  their 
homes.  This  chapter  also  thus  affords  signal  con- 
firmation of  Daniel.  The  critics  therefore  hold,  of 
course,  that  it  belongs  to  the  close  of  Jehoiakim's 
reign.  And  if  we  ask.  Why  should  the  history  be 
turned  upside  down  in  this  way  ?  they  answer. 
Because  the  prophecies  of  the  earlier  years  of 
his  reign  are  silent  as  to  this  invasion !  This 
is  a  typical  illustration  of  their  logic  and  their 
methods. 

I  will  only  add  that  the  silence  of  a  witness  is  a 


FIRST    INVASION    OF    JUDEA  1 59 

familiar  problem  with  the  man  of  affairs,  who  will 
sometimes  account  for  it  in  a  manner  that  may  seem 
strange  to  the  student  at  his  desk.  It  may  be 
due,  not  to  ignorance  of  the  event  in  question, 
but  to  the  fact  that  that  event  was  prominently 
present  to  the  minds  of  all  concerned. 


APPENDIX    II 

THE   DEATH    OF   BELSHAZZAR 

The  following  is  Professor  Sayce's  rendering  of 
the  concluding  (decipherable)  portion  of  the  An- 
nalistic  tablet  of  Cyrus  : — 

"  On  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  Sippara 
was  taken  without  fighting;  Nabonidos  fled.  On 
the  sixteenth  day  Gobryas  (Ugbaru),  the  Gover- 
nor of  the  countr}^  of  Kurdistan  (Gutium),  and  the 
soldiers  of  Cyrus,  entered  Babylon  without  fighting. 
Afterwards  Nabonidos  was  captured,  after  being 
bound  in  Babylon.  At  the  end  of  the  month 
Tammuz  the  javelin-throwers  of  the  country  of 
Kurdistan  guarded  the  gates  of  E-Saggil ;  no  ces- 
sation of  services  took  place  in  E-Saggil  and  the 
other  temples,  but  no  special  festival  was  observed. 
The  third  day  of  the  month  Marchesvan  (October) 
Cyrus  entered  Babylon.  Dissensions  were  allayed 
before  him.  Peace  to  the  city  did  Cyrus  establish, 
peace  to  all  the  province  of  Babylon  did  Gobryas 
his  governor  proclaim.  Governors  in  Babylon  he 
appointed.  From  the  month  Chisleu  to  the  month 
Adar  (November  to  February)  the  gods  of  the 
country  of  Accad,  whom  Nabonidos  had  trans- 
ferred to  Babylon,  returned  to  their  own  cities. 
The  eleventh  day  of  the  month  Marchesvan,  during 

the  night,  Gobryas  was  on  the   bank  of  the  river. 

1 60 


THE    DEATH    OF    BELSHAZZAR  l6l 

.  .  .  The  wife  of  the  king  died.  From  the  twenty- 
seventh  day  of  Adar  to  the  third  day  of  Nisan 
there  was  lamentation  in  the  country  of  Accad ; 
all  the  people  smote  their  heads.  On  the  fourth 
day  Kambyses  the  son  of  Cyrus  conducted  the 
burial  at  the  temple  of  the  Sceptre  of  the  world. 
The  priest  of  the  temple  of  the  Sceptre  of  Nebo, 
who  upbears  the  sceptre  [of  Nebo  in  the  temple 
of  the  god],  in  an  Elamite  robe  took  the  hands 
of  Nebo,  .  .  ,  the  son  of  the  king  (Kambyses) 
[offered]  free-will  offerings  in  full  to  ten  times 
[the  usual  amount].  He  confined  to  E-Saggil 
the  [image]  of  Nebo.  Victims  before  Bel  to  ten 
times  [the  usual  amount  he  sacrificed]." 

The  reader's  surprise  will  naturally  be  excited  on 
learning  that  the  tablet  is  so  mutilated  and  defective 
that  the  text  has  here  and  there  to  be  reconstructed, 
and  that  the  above,  while  purporting  to  be  merely 
a  translation  is,  in  fact,  also  a  reconstruction.  I 
will  here  confine  myself,  however,  to  one  point 
of  principal  importance.  Mr.  Theo.  G.  Pinches, 
by  whom  this  very  tablet  was  first  brought 
to  light,  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  reading  "  the 
wife  of  the  king  died  "  cannot  be  sustained.  He 
writes  as  follows  ^  (I  omit  the  cuneiform  charac- 
ters) : — 

"  Professor  Sayce  has  adopted  a  suggestion  of 
Professor  Schrader.     The  characters  cannot  be  .  .  . 


*  I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  obligation  to  the  Rev.  John 
Urquhart,  the  author  of  TJie  Inspiration  and  Accuracy  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  for  placing  this  letter  at  my  disposal. 

L 


1 62  APPENDIX    II 

'  and  the  wife  of,'  but  must  be  either  ...  *  and  '  (as 
I  read  it  at  first)  or  ...  *  and  the  son  of.'  This 
last  improved  reading  I  suggested  about  four  years 
ago,  and  the  Rev.  C.  J.  Ball  and  Dr.  Hagen,  who 
examined  the  text  with  me,  adopted  this  view.  Dr. 
Hagen  wrote  upon  the  subject  in  Delitzsch's  Beit- 
rage,  vol.  i.  Of  course,  whether  we  read  '  and  the 
king  died,'  or  *  and  the  son  of  the  king  died,'  it 
comes  to  the  same  thing,  as  either  expression  could 
refer  to  Belshazzar,  who,  after  his  father's  flight, 
would  naturally  be  at  the  head  of  affairs." 

The  following  extract  is  from  Mr.  Pinches's  article 
"  Belshazzar  "  in  the  new  edition  of  Smith's  Bible 
Dictionary : — 

"  As  is  well  known,  Belshazzar  was,  according  to 
Daniel  v.,  killed  in  the  night,  and  Xenophon  {Cyrop., 
vii.  5,  3)  tells  us  that  Babylon  was  taken  by  Cyrus 
during  the  night,  whilst  the  inhabitants  were  en- 
gaged in  feasting  and  revelry,  and  that  the  king  was 
killed.  So  in  the  Babylonian  Chronicle,  lines  22-24, 
we  have  the  statement  that  *  On  the  night  of  the 
II th  of  Marchesvan,  Ugbaru  (Gobryas)  [descended?] 
against  [Babylon  ?]  and  the  king  died.  From  the 
27th  of  Adar  until  the  3rd  of  Nisan  there  was  weep- 
ing in  Akkad.  All  the  people  bowed  their  head.' 
The  most  doubtful  character  in  the  above  extract  is 
that  which  stands  for  the  word  '  and,'  the  character 
in  question  having  been  regarded  as  the  large  group 
which  stands  for  that  word.  A  close  examination  of 
the  original,  however,  shows  that  it  is  possible  that 
there  are  two  characters  instead  of  one — namely,  the 
j;«(a:// character  for  'and,'  and  the  character  tur,  which 
in  this  connection  would  stand  for  u  mar,  '  and  the 
son  of/  in  which  case  the  line  would  read,  *  and  the 


THE    DEATH    OF    BELSHAZZAR  1 63 

son  of  the  king  died.'  Weeping  in  Akkad  for  Bel- 
shazzar  is  just  what  would  be  expected,  when  we 
take  into  consideration  that  he  was  for  many  years 
with  the  army  there,  and  that  he  must  have  made 
himself  a  favourite  by  his  liberality  to  the  Akkadian 
temples.  Even  supposing,  however,  that  the  old 
reading  is  the  right  one,  it  is  nevertheless  possible 
that  the  passage  refers  to  Belshazzar ;  for  Berosus 
relates  that  Nabonidos,  on  surrendering  to  Cyrus, 
had  his  life  spared,  and  that  a  principality  or  estate 
was  given  to  him  in  Carmania,  where  he  died.  It 
is  therefore  at  least  probable  that  Belshazzar  was 
regarded  even  by  the  Babylonians  as  king,  especi- 
ally after  his  father's  surrender.  With  this  improved 
reading  of  the  Babylonian  text,  it  is  impossible  to  do 
otherwise  than  identify  Gobry as  with  Darius  the  Mede 
(if  we  suppose  that  the  last  verse  of  the  5  th  chapter 
of  Daniel  really  belongs  to  that  chapter,  and  does 
not  form  part,  as  in  the  Hebrew  text,  of  chap,  vi.), 
he  being  mentioned,  in  the  Babylonian  Chronicle,  in 
direct  connection  with  the  death  of  the  king's  son 
(or  the  king,  as  the  case  may  be).  This  identifica- 
tion, though  not  without  its  difficulties,  receives  a 
certain  amount  of  support  from  Daniel  vi.  i,  where 
it  is  stated  that  *  it  pleased  Darius  to  set  over  the 
kingdom  an  hundred  and  twenty  princes,'  &c. — an 
act  which  finds  parallel  in  the  Babylonian  Chronicle, 
which  states  that,  after  Cyrus  promised  peace  to 
Babylon,  Gobryas,  his  governor,  appointed  gover- 
nors in  Babylon.' " 

On  this  same  subject  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  St. 
Chad  Boscawen  for  the  following  note  : — 

"  Owing  to  the  mutilated  state  of  the  latter  part 
of  the  tablet,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  arrange  the 


164  APPENDIX    II 

events,  and  also  in  some  cases  to  clearly  understand 
the  exact  meanings  of  the  sentences.  As  far  as  I 
can  see,  the  course  of  events  seems  to  have  been  as 
follows.  Sippara  was  taken  on  the  14th  of  Tam- 
muz,  and  two  days  later  Babylon.  Nabonidos  had 
fled,  but  he  was  still  recognised  as  king  by  the 
majority  of  the  people,  especially  by  rich  trading 
communities  such  as  the  Egibi  firm,  who  continued 
to  date  their  contracts  in  his  regnal  years.  At 
Sippara  the  people  seem  to  have  recognised  Cyrus 
as  king  earlier  than  at  Babylon,  as  the  tablets  of 
his  accession  year  are  all,  with  one  exception,  the 
source  of  which  is  not  known,  from  Sippara.  On 
the  3rd  of  Marchesvan  Cyrus  entered  Babylon  and 
appointed  Gobryas  (the  prefect  of  Gutium)  '  prefect 
of  the  prefects  '  {pikhat-pikhate)  of  Babylon  ;  and 
he  (Gobryas)  appointed  the  ol/ier  pi^efects.  That 
reading  of  the  sentence  is  perfectly  legitimate. 
Cyrus  seems  only  to  have  occupied  himself  with 
the  restoration  of  religious  order,  and  on  restoring 
the  gods  to  their  temples  who  had  been  transported 
to  Babylon.  We  have  then  a  remarkable  passage. 
Sayce  reads  '  the  wife  of  the  king  died ' ;  but  Hagen 
reads  the  son  of  the  king,  and  I  have  examined  this 
tablet,  and  find  that  although  the  tablet  is  here 
broken,  the  most  probable  reading  is  .  .  .  the  son, 
not  the  wife  .  .  . 

"  In  Dan.  v.  we  read,  and  '  Darius  the  Median 
took  the  kingdom,  being  about  threescore  and  two 
years.'  In  a  second  passage,  however,  this  is  modi- 
fied. We  read,  *  In  the  first  year  of  Darius,  the 
son  of  Ahasuerus,  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes,  which 
was  made  king  over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans' 
(ix.  i);  and  again,  'It  pleased  Darius  to  set  over 
the  kingdom  a  hundred  and  twenty  princes'  (vi.  i). 
Here  we  have  an  exact  parallel  to  the  case  of  Gob- 


THE    DEATH    OF    BELSHAZZAR  1 65 

ryas.  Gobryas  was  a  Manda — among  whom  were 
embraced  the  Medes,  for  Astyages,  an  undoubted 
Median  king,  ruler  of  the  Median  capital  of  Ecbatana, 
is  called  ...  a  soldier  of  the  Manda,  or  barbarians. 
He  is  appointed  on  the  3rd  Marchesvan  B.C.  538 — 
after  taking  the  kingdom  on  i6th  Tammuz — 'prefect 
of  the  prefects  ' ;  and  he  appoints  other  prefects  over 
the  kingdom.  His  reign  did  not  last  more  than  one 
year,  terminating  in  either  Adar  538  or  early  in  B.C. 
537.  The  end  is  rendered  obscure  by  the  fractures 
in  the  tablet.  .  .  . 

"  If,  then,  Gubaru  or  Gobryas  was  prefect  of 
Gutium  before  his  conquest  of  Babylon  in  B.C.  538, 
there  is  nothing  whatever  against  his  being  a  Mede  ; 
and  as  Astyages  was  deposed  by  a  revolt,  when  '  he 
was  taken  by  the  hands  of  the  rebels  and  given  to 
Cyrus '  {Chronicle  Inscr.),  it  is  very  probable  that 
Gobryas  was  the  leader  of  the  conspiracy.  Indeed 
he  seems  to  me  to  fulfil  in  every  way  the  required 
conditions  to  be  Darius  the  Mede.  .  .  .  The  appoint- 
ment of  the  satraps  does  not  seem  exorbitantly  large, 
nor  are  these  to  be  confounded  with  the  satrapies  of 
the  Persian  empire." 

And  finally,  in  his  Book  of  Daniel  (p.  xxx)  Pro- 
fessor Driver,  in  citing  the  foregoing  extract  from 
the  tablet,  reads  the  crucial  sentence  thus : — "  On 
the  nth  day  of  Marchesvan,  during  the  night, 
Gubaru  made  an  assault  and  slew  the  king's  son." 
And  at  pp.  60,  61  he  writes:  "After  Gubaru  and 
Cyrus  had  entered  Babylon  ...  he  (Belshazzar)  is 
said  (according  to  the  most  probable  reading)  to 
have  been  slain  by  Gubaru  'during  the  night,'  i.e. 
(apparently)  in  some  assault  made  by  night  upon 
the  fortress  or  palace  to  which  he  had  withdrawn." 


1 66  APPENDIX    II 

I  will  only  add  that,  in  view  of  the  testimony  of 
these  witnesses,  so  thoroughly  competent  and  im- 
partial, it  is  not  easy  to  restrain  a  feeling  of  indigna- 
tion at  the  effrontery  (not  to  use  a  stronger  word) 
of  Professor  Sayce's  language  in  pp.  525,  526  of  his 
book. 


APPENDIX   III 

THE   PUNCTUATION    OF   DANIEL   IX.    2$ 

The  Massoretic  punctuation  of  Daniel  ix.  25  has 

been  adopted  by  Dean  Farrar  and  Professor  Driver, 

who  fail  to  see  that  it  is  fatal  to  their  pseud-epigraph 

theory  of  Daniel.      The  passage  when   thus  read 

limits    to   62    "  weeks "    the    period    during    which 

Jerusalem  was  to  remain  as  an  inhabited  city;  and 

it  is  quite  certain  that  no  Jew  writing  "  in  the  days 

of  the  Seleucid  tyrant,  anxious  to  inspire  the  courage 

and   console    the    sufferings    of  his    countrymen," 

would   have  used  words   which    could  only  mean 

that  the  destruction  of  their  holy  city  was  imminent. 

Assuming  the  genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel, 

the  R.V.  punctuation  renders  the  meaning  of  the 

passage  more  obscure,  but  it  cannot  alter  it  ;  for 

as  74-62+1   make   up  70,    it   is  obvious  that  the 

lesser  periods  mentioned   are  subdivisions  of  the 

70  weeks  of  the  prophecy.     It  is  clear,  therefore, 

that  the  62  weeks  follow  the  7  weeks,  and  that  the 

death  of  Messiah  (according  to  verse  26)  was  to  be 

at  the  close  of  the  69th  week. 

"  The    sacred    writings — Torah,    Prophets,    and 

Hagiographa — were   written  in  archaic    style,   the 

167 


I  68  APPENDIX    III 

letters  were  unaccompanied  by  vowel  or  punctua- 
tion signs.  .  .  .  The  accents  and  the  vowel  system 
are  an  integral  part  of  the  Massorah."^  And 
further,  "  The  Received,  or,  as  it  is  commonly 
called,  the  Massoretic  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  has  come  down  to  us  in  manuscripts 
which  are  of  no  very  great  antiquity,  and  which 
all  belong  to  the  same  family  or  recension  "  (Pre- 
face, R.V.).  As  the  words  "  of  no  very  great 
antiquity "  may  be  explained  to  mean  not  more 
than  about  one  thousand  years  old,  the  reader 
can  appreciate  Professor  Margoliouth's  statement 
"that  we  possess  the  Old  Testament  in  a  partially 
anti-Christian  recension."  ^  And  as  a  false  punctua- 
tion of  Dan.  ix.  25  would  suffice  to  obscure,  though 
it  could  not  destroy,  the  Messianic  reference  of  the 
passage,  the  Jewish  editors  may  have  possibly 
sought  in  this  way  to  lessen  the  weight  of 
proof  which  Daniel  affords  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tian it3^ 

But  we  may  clear  the  Jewish  editors  from  this 
charge,  though  at  the  expense  of  the  Old  Testament 
Compan}^  of  Revisers.  Punctuation  marks  (as  we 
understand  the  term)  there  are  none  in  Hebrew. 
But  the  Hebrew  accents  serve  to  a  certain  extent  the 
same  purpose.  The  following  extract  from  the 
Gesenius-Kautzsch  Hebrew  Grammar'^  (than  which 

1  The  Hebrew  Accents^  by  Arthur  Davis.  (Myers  &  Co., 
1 900.) 

2  Lines  of  Defence^  p.  242. 

3  Clarendon  Press,  1898  (p.  56). 


THE    PUNCTUATION    OF    DANIEL  1 69 

there  is  no  higher  authority)  will  enable  the  reader 
to  judge  of  this  matter  for  himself: — 

"The  design  of  the  accents  \^ primarily  to  regu- 
late the  musical  enunciation  (chanting)  of  the  sacred 
Text ;  and  thus  they  are  first  of  all  a  kind  of  musi- 
cal notes.  .  .  .  On  the  other  hand,  according  to 
their  original  design  they  have  also  a  twofold  use 
which  is  still  of  the  greatest  importance  for  the 
grammar — viz.,  their  value  (a)  as  marking  the  tone  ; 
(b)  as  marks  of  punctuation^^  And  to  this  a  foot- 
note is  added  to  explain  "  that  the  value  of  the 
accent  as  a  mark  of  punctuation  is  always  relative. 
Thus,  e.g.,  'Athnah,  as  regards  the  logical  struc- 
ture of  the  sentence,  may  at  one  time  indicate  a  very 
strong  caesure  (thus  Gen.  i.  4) ;  at  another,  one 
which  is  almost  imperceptible  (thus  Gen.  i.  l)." 

Now  it  is  the  presence  of  the  Athnah  accent 
which  has  led'  the  Revisers  to  divide  Dan.  ix.  25 
by  a  colon.  On  the  same  principle  and  for  the 
same  reason  they  ought  to  have  rendered  Gen.  i.  i, 
"  In  the  beginning  God  created  :  the  heaven  and 
the  earth."  In  the  Hebrew  the  order  of  the  words 
is,  "  In  the  beginning  created  God  ; "  and  the  force 
of  the  Athnah  is  to  make  the  reader  pause  at  the 
sacred  name  in  order  that  the  hearers  may  grasp 
the  solemn  meaning  of  the  words.  In  every  case, 
therefore,  the  context  must  decide  whether  the 
accent  should  be  "  translated  "  by  the  insertion  of  a 
colon  in  the  English  version.  The  Revisers,  how- 
ever, by  a  majority  vote,  and  in  spite  of  the  protest 
of  the  American  Company,  have  thus  corrupted 
Dan.  ix.  25.     It    is   one   of  the   blemishes  of  the 


170  APPENDIX    III 

R.V.  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  generally  free 
from  these  "  schoolboy  translations,"  ^  that  so  often 
mark  the  R.V.  of  the  New  Testament.  I  will  con- 
clude by  repeating  that  if  their  punctuation  here  is 
right,  it  is  proof  that  Daniel  was  not  written  in  the 
Maccabean  era. 

Since  writing  the  foregoing  my  attention  has 
been  called  to  the  presence  of  the  Athnah  in  verse 
2  of  this  very  chapter.  If  the  critics  are  right  they 
ought  to  render  it,  "  I,  Daniel,  understood  by  the 
books:  the  number  of  the  years,  &c."  But  their 
position  is  in  fact  utterly  untenable. 

*  Eccles.  xii.  5  is  a  notable  instance  of  this.  The  beauti- 
fully veiled  reference  implied  in  the  caper-berry  is  rendered 
with  exquisite  propriety  in  our  A.V.,  "and  desire  shall  fail." 
The  R.V.  reading,  "  and  the  caper-berry  shall  fail,"  is  a 
mere  schoolboy  translation,  and  absolutely  meaningless  to 
the  English  reader. 


APPENDIX    IV 

THE  JEWISH   CALENDAR 

According  to  th&Mishna  (treatise  Rosh  Hashanali)^ 
"  On  the  1st  of  Nisan  is  a  new  year  for  the  com- 
putation of  the  reign  of  kings  and  for  festivals." 
To  which  the  Jewish  editors  of  the  Engh'sh  trans- 
lation of  the  Mishna  add  this  note:  "The  reign  of 
Jewish  kings,  whatever  the  period  of  accession  might 
be,  was  always  reckoned  from  the  preceding  Nisan ; 
so  that  if,  for  instance,  a  Jewish  king  began  to  reign 
in  Adar,  the  following  month  (Nisan)  would  be 
considered  as  the  commencement  of  the  second 
year  of  his  reign.  This  rule  was  observed  in  all 
legal  contracts,  in  which  the  reign  of  kings  was 
always  mentioned."  This  rule,  I  may  add,  will 
explain  what  Christian  expositors  and  critics  are 
pleased  to  call  the  "errors"  in  the  chronological 
statements  of  Scripture  as  to  Jewish  regnal  years. 

Full  information  on  the  subject  of  the  present 
Jewish  year  will  be  found  in  Lindo's  Jewish 
Calendar,  and  in  the  Encyc.  Brit.,  9th  ed.,  article 
"  Hebrew  Calendar."  But  while  their  calendar  is 
now  settled  with  astronomical  accuracy,  it  was  not 

so  in  early  times.     And  nothing  is  certainly  known 

171 


172  APPENDIX    IV 

of  the  embolismal  system  then  in  use,  to  adjust  the 
lunar  to  the  solar  year.  But  the  testimony  of  the 
Mishna  is  definite  that  the  great  characteristic  of 
the  sacred  year,  as  ordained  in  the  Mosaic  age, 
remained  unchanged  in  Messianic  times;  namely, 
it  began  with  the  first  appearance  of  the  Paschal 
moon.  The  Mishna  states  that  the  Sanhedrim  re- 
quired the  evidence  of  two  competent  witnesses 
that  they  had  seen  the  new  moon.  The  rules  for 
the  journey  and  examination  of  the  witnesses  con- 
template the  case  of  their  coming  from  a  distance, 
and  being  "a  night  and  a  day  on  the  road."  The 
proclamation  by  the  Sanhedrim  may  therefore  have 
been  delayed  for  a  day  or  two  after  the  phasis,  and 
the  phasis  may  sometimes  have  been  delayed  till 
the  moon  was  l  d.  17  h.  old.  So  that  the  1st  Nisan 
may  sometimes  have  fallen  several  days  later  than 
the  true  new  moon.  (See  Clinton,  asti  Roiu., 
vol.  ii.  p.  240.) 

All  writers  therefore  who,  e.g.^  fix  the  date  of  the 
Crucifixion  by  assigning  it  to  a  year  in  which  the 
Paschal  full  moon  was  on  a  Friday,  are  clearly 
wrong.  The  elements  of  doubt  are:  (i)  The  time 
of  the  phasis ;  (2)  the  appearance  of  the  necessary 
witnesses ;  (3)  the  rules  to  prevent  the  festivals 
falling  on  unsuitable  days ;  and  (4)  the  embolismal 
system  in  force,  of  which  we  know  nothing  certainly. 
The  use  of  the  Metonic  cycle  in  settling  the  Jewish 
calendar  dates  only  from  the  fourth  century  A.D. ; 
and  as  the  old  eight  years'  cycle  was  in  use 
among    the   early    Christians    for   settling   Easter, 


THE    JEWISH    CALENDAR  I  73 

the    presumption    is    that   it   was   borrowed   from 
the  Jews. 

Let  me  illustrate  this  by  A.D.  32,  the  year  which 
Scripture  itself  marks  out  as  the  year  of  the  Cruci- 
fixion. The  true  new  moon  was  late  on  the  night 
(lOh,  57m.)  of  the  29th  March.  The  proclamation 
of  the  Sanhedrim  therefore  would  naturally  have 
occurred  on  the  31st.  But,  as  above  explained,  it 
may  have  been  delayed  till  1st  April;  and  in  that 
case  the  15  th  Nisan  should  have  fallen  on  Tuesday 
the  15  th  April.  But  according  to  the  scheme  of  the 
eight  years'  cycle,  the  embolismal  month  was  inserted 
in  the  3rd,  6th,  and  8th  years ;  and  an  examination 
of  the  calendars  from  A.D.  22  to  45  will  show  that 
A.D.  32  was  the  3rd  year  of  such  a  cycle.  And  as 
the  difference  between  the  solar  year  and  the  lunar 
is  11^  days,  it  would  amount  in  three  years  to  33! 
days,  and  the  addition  of  a  13th  month  {Ve-Adar) 
of  30  days  would  leave  an  epoch  still  remaining  of 
3I  days.  And  the  "  ecclesiastical  moon  "  being 
that  much  before  the  real  moon,  the  Passover 
festival  would  have  fallen  on  Friday  (i  ith  April).  I 
have  dealt  with  this  question  at  greater  length  in 
The  Coming  Prince,  pp.  99-105. 


APPENDIX    V 

THE  TWENTIETH   YEAR   OF   ARTAXERXES 

The  month  Nisaii  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes 
is  the  epoch  of  the  prophetic  era  of  the  seventy  weeks. 
In  deahng  with  this  subject,  therefore,  it  is  of  vital 
importance  to  fix  that  date,  and  I  have  dealt  with 
the  matter  exhaustively  in  an  Excursus  (App.  II., 
Note  A)  added  to  The  Coining  Prince,  to  which  I 
beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader.  I  will  here  give  but 
one  extract : — 

"According  to  Clinton  {F.  //.,  vol.  ii.  p.  380),  the 
death  of  Xerxes  was  in  July,  B.C.  465,  and  the 
accession  of  Artaxerxes  was  in  February,  B.C.  464. 
Artaxerxes,  of  course,  ignored  the  usurper's  reign, 
which  intervened,  and  reckoned  his  own  reign  from 
the  day  of  his  father's  death.  Again,  of  course, 
Nehemiah,  being  an  officer  of  the  court,  followed  the 
same  reckoning.  Had  he  computed  his  master's 
reign  from  February  464,  Chislen  and  Nisan  could 
not  have  fallen  in  the  same  regnal  year  (Neh.  i.  i  ; 
ii.  i).  No  more  could  they,  had  he,  according  to 
Jewish  practice,  computed  it  from  Nisan." 

Not  content,  however,  with  my  own  investigations, 
I  appealed  to  the  author  of  The  Five  Great  Mon- 
archies,  and  Canon   Rawlinson  favoured  me  with 

174 


TWENTIETH    YEAR    OF    ARTAXERXES         1 75 

the  following  reply :  '*  You  may  safely  say  that 
chronologers  are  now  agreed  that  Xerxes  died  in 
the  year  B.C.  465.  The  Canon  of  Ptolemy,  Thuci- 
dides,  Diodorus,  and  Manetho  are  agreed,  the  only 
counter  authority  being  Ctesias,  who  is  quite  un- 
trustworthy." 

Then  as  regards  the  Julian  date  of  the  ist  Nisan, 
B.C.  445  (Neh.  ii.),  when  my  book  was  in  the  press, 
I  began  to  fear  lest  my  own  lunar  calculations  to 
fix  the  Jewish  New  Year  (see  Appendix  IV.,  ante)^ 
might  prove  untrustworthy,  and  accordingly  I  wrote 
to  the  then  Astronomer-Royal,  Sir  George  Airy, 
who  replied  as  follows :  "  I  have  had  the  moon's 
place  calculated  from  Largeteau's  Tables  in  additions 
to  the  Connaisancc  des  Temps,  1 846,  by  one  of  my 
assistants,  and  have  no  doubt  of  its  correctness. 
The  place  being  calculated  for  — 444,  March  12  d. 
20  h.,  French  reckoning,  or  March  12  d.  8  h.  P.M., 
it  appears  that  the  said  time  was  short  of  New 
Moon  by  about  8  h.  47  m.,  and  therefore  the  New 
Moon  occurred  at  4  h.  47  m.  A.M.,  March  13th, 
Paris  time." 

The  New  Moon,  therefore,  occurred  at  Jerusalem 
on  the  13th  March,  B.C.  445  ( — 444  Astronomical) 
at  7  h.  9  m.  A.M.  And  the  next  day,  the  14th,  was 
the  1st  Nisan. 


APPENDIX  VI 

THE   DATE   OF   THE   CRUCIFIXION 

As  regards  the  date  of  the  Ministry  and  of  the 
Passion,  Luke  iii.  i  is  an  end  of  controversy  with 
all  who  reject  the  nightmare  system  of  interpreting 
Scripture.  The  15th  year  of  the  Emperor  Tiberius 
is  as  certain  a  date  as  the  15th  year  of  Queen 
Victoria.  He  began  to  reign  on  the  19th  August 
A.D,  14.  "And  no  single  case  has  ever  been,  or 
can  be,  produced  in  which  the  years  of  Tiberius 
were  reckoned  in  any  other  manner." 

But  Gibbon  tells  us  that  "  The  Roman  Emperors 
.  .  .  invested  their  designed  successor  with  so  large 
a  share  of  present  power  as  should  enable  him,  after 
their  decease,  to  assume  the  remainder  without  suf- 
fering the  empire  to  perceive  the  change  of  masters. 
Thus  Augustus  .  .  .  obtained  for  his  adopted  son 
[Tiberius]  the  censorial  and  tribunitian  power, 
and  dictated  a  law  by  which  the  future  prince 
was  invested  with  an  authority  equal  to  his  own 
over  the  provinces  and  the  armies.  Thus  Ves- 
pasian .  .  .  associated  Titus  to  the  full  powers  of 
the  Imperial  dignity  "  {Decline  and  Fall,  I.  ch.  3). 

And  this  is  made  an  excuse  for  "cooking"  the 

chronology   by   those   who,    in    spite    of  the  clear 

176 


THE    DATE    OF    THE    CRUCIFIXION  1 77 

testimony  of  Scripture,  insist  on  assigning  the 
Crucifixion  to  A.D.  29  or  30.  They  treat  the  reign 
of  Tiberius  as  beginning  some  years  before  the 
death  of  Augustus,  and  take  his  15  th  year  to  mean 
his  1 2th  year.  Sanclementi,  indeed,  finding  "that 
nowhere  in  his  tim.e,  or  on  monuments  or  coins,  is 
a  vestige  to  be  found  of  any  such  mode  of  reckoning 
the  years  of  this  emperor,"  disposes  of  the  difficulty 
by  taking  the  date  in  Luke  iii.  i  to  refer  to  the 
Passion  !  Browne  adopts  this  in  a  modified  form. 
He  says  "  it  is  improbable  to  the  last  degree " 
that  Luke,  who  wrote  specially  for  a  Roman  officer, 
and  generally  for  Gentiles,  would  have  so  expressed 
himself  as  to  be  certainly  misunderstood  by  them. 
Therefore,  though  the  statement  of  the  Evangelist 
clashes  with  his  date  for  the  Passion,  he  owns  his 
obligation  to  accept  it.  (See  Ordo  Scec,  §§  71 
and  75.) 

The  Evangelist's  chronology  refutes  the  tradi- 
tional date  embodied  in  the  spurious  Acta  Pilati 
formerly  quoted  in  this  controversy,  and  in  the 
writings  of  certain  of  the  Fathers  —  "by  some 
because  they  confounded  the  date  of  the  baptism 
with  the  date  of  the  Passion;  by  others,  because 
they  supposed  both  to  have  happened  in  one  year ; 
by  others,  because  they  transcribed  from  their 
predecessors  without  examination"  (Fynes  Clinton, 
Fasti  Rom.,  A.D.  29), 

The  advocates  of  this  false  chronology  rely,  first, 
on  a  wrong  inference  from  the  Evangelist's  state- 
ment that  the  Lord  "when  He  began  (to  teach) 

M 


178  APPENDIX    VI 

was  about  thirty  years  of  age  "  (Luke  iii.  23).  But, 
as  Alford  says,  this  "  admits  of  considerable  lati- 
tude, but  only  in  one  direction^  viz.  over  thirty  years." 
And,  secondly,  on  the  figment  that  the  Passion  must 
have  occurred  in  a  year  when  the  Paschal  moon 
was  full  upon  a  Friday.  But  this  is  a  blunder. 
John  xviii.  3  makes  it  clear  that  the  Passover  of  the 
Crucifixion  was  not  at  the  full  moon.  For  in  that 
case  there  would  have  been  no  "  lanterns  and 
torches,"  especially  having  regard  to  Luke  xxii.  2. 
See  Appendix  IV.  (p.  172/".  ante)\  and  also  CHnton's 
Fasti  Rom.  ^  vol.  ii.  p.  240,  as  to  the  impossibility 
of  determining  in  what  year  the  Passover  fell  on  a 
Friday.  The  whole  question  is  dealt  with  fully  in 
The  Coming  Prince^  ch.  viii. 


APPENDIX  VII 

PROFESSOR   driver's    INDICTMENT   OF   DANIEL 

The   following  is   a   brief  summary  of    Professor 
Driver's  indictment  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

He  enumerates  under  nine  heads  "  facts  of  a 
historical  nature "  which  point  to  an  author  later 
than  Daniel  (pp.  xlvii-lvi).     These  are  : — 

1.  The  position  of  the  Book  in  the  Jewish  Canon. 
(As  to  this  see  pp.  57-61,  and  103-108,  ante.) 

2.  The  omission  of  his  name  from  Ecclesiasticus. 
(See  pp.  57,  98  n.,  ante.) 

3.  That  the  Book  of  Kings  is  silent  as  to  the 
siege  mentioned  in  Dan.  i.  i.  (Seep.  15  and  App.  I., 
ante.) 

4.  The  use  of  the  term  "  Chaldean."  (See  p.  45  n., 
ante.) 

5.  That  Belshazzar  is  spoken  of  as  king,  and  as 
son  of  Nebuchadnezzar.     (See  p.  23^.,  ante.) 

6.  The  mention  of  Darius  the  Mede  as  King  of 
Babylon.     (See  p.  31^.  and  165,  ante.) 

7.  The  mention  of  "  the  books  "  in  Dan.  ix.  2. 
The  word  sepher  means  simply  a  scroll.  It  often 
denotes  a  book  ;  often  a  letter  (as,  e.g.^  Jer.  xxix.  i, 
or  Isa.  xxxvii.    14.)      Then  again  Jer,   xxxvi.   i,  2 

records  that  Jeremiah's  prophecies  up  to  that  time 

179 


l8o  APPENDIX    VII 

were  recorded  in  a  "  book."  And  ten  years  later 
a  further  "book"  of  them  was  sent  to  Babylon 
(Jer.  li.  60,  61).  Or  if  any  one  insists  that  "the 
books  "  must  here  mean  a  recognised  canon,  where 
is  the  difficulty  ?  The  statement  that  no  such 
"collection"  existed  in  B.C.  536  is  one  of  those 
wanton  assertions  that  abound  in  this  controversy. 
It  may  "  safely  be  affirmed  "  with  certainty  that  the 
scrolls  of  the  Law  were  kept  together.  And  there 
was  no  man  on  earth  more  likely  to  possess  them 
than  the  great  prophet-prince  of  the  Captivity. 

8.  "  The  incorrect  explanation  of  the  name  Belte- 
shazzar  in  iv.  8."  (As  Dr.  Driver  goes  on  to  de- 
scribe this  as  "  doubtful "  (p.  liv.),  I  have  not  deemed 
it  necessary  to  notice  it.) 

9.  The  "improbability"  that  strict  Jews  would 
have  accepted  a  position  among  the  "  wise  men  " 
(see  p.  13,  ante),  and  other  like  "improbabilities." 
(As  Dr.  Driver  goes  on  to  admit  that  these  do  not 
possess  weight,  and  "  should  be  used  with  reserve," 
I  have  not  dwelt  upon  them.) 

His  second  ground  of  attack  is  the  language  of 
the  book  (Ivi.-lxiii.).  This  has  been  fully  discussed 
in  these  pages  (ch.  iv.). 

And  the  third  ground  is  "  the  theology  of  the 
book."  After  deprecating  the  "  exaggerations  of 
the  rationalists  "  under  this  head,  he  proceeds : — 
"  It  is  undeniable  that  the  conception  of  the  future 
Kingdom  of  God,  and  the  doctrines  of  angels,  of  the 
resurrection,  and  of  a  judgment  on  the  world,  appear 
in  Daniel  in  a  more  developed  form  than  elsewhere 


PROFESSOR    driver's    INDICTMENT         l8l 

in  the  Old  Testament."  Far  be  it  from  me  to  deny 
it !  It  is  largely  on  this  very  account  that  the 
Christian  values  the  book,  remembering  as  he  does, 
what  Professor  Driver  ignores,  that  its  teaching  in 
all  these  respects  is  definitely  adopted  and  developed 
in  the  New  Testament.  And  if  he  finds  that  the 
later  Jewish  apocalyptical  hterature  resembles  the 
book  in  some  respects,  he  has  no  difficulty  in 
accounting  for  the  resemblance.  (See  p.  57,  ante.) 
I  make  the  critic  a  present  of  the  entire  argument 
under  this  head  of  "  the  theology  of  the  book,"  save 
on  three  points.  And  they  are  points  which  would 
never  have  been  urged  by  an  English  Christian 
writer  save  under  the  influence  of  German  infidelity. 

1.  It  is  not  true  that  the  interest  of  the  book  cul- 
minates in  the  history  of  Antiochus.  As  all  Christian 
expositors  with  united  voice  maintain,  it  culminates 
in  the  prophecy  of  Messiah's  advent  and  death. 
And  as  all  students  of  prophecy  recognise,  it  reaches 
on  to  the  time  of  the  great  Antichrist  of  whom 
Antiochus  was  but  a  type. 

2.  Daniel's  passionatel}'  earnest  prayer  recorded 
in  ch.  ix.  is  a  complete  answer  to  the  statement  that 
he  took  "  little  interest  in  the  welfare  and  prospects 
of  his  contemporaries." 

3.  We  are  told  that  "  the  minuteness  of  the  predic- 
tions embracing  even  special  events  in  the  distant 
future,  is  also  out  of  harmony  with  the  analogy  of 
prophecy."  If  this  were  sustained  it  would  not  affect 
the  book  as  a  whole,  but  serve  merely  to  accredit  the 
suggestion  urged  by  some  writers  that  part  of  chap.  xi. 


I  82  APPENDIX    VII 

is  an  interpolation.  But  in  view  of  the  facts  this  alle- 
gation is  as  strange  as  that  under  (2)  supra,  and  as 
many  others  in  Professor  Driver's  book.  What 
about  the  minute  predictions  scattered  through  the 
Old  Testament  respecting  the  Nativity  and  the 
Passion  ?  And  the  last  eight  chapters  of  Ezekiel 
contain  a  mass  of  predictions  which  still  ajvait 
fulfilment,  as  minute  as  anything  in  Daniel. 

This  is  all  that  the  Higher  Criticism  has  to  urge 
against  the  Book  of  Daniel. 


INDEX 


Accents,  the  Hebrew,  169 
Adler,  Dr.,  Chief  Rabbi,  26  «. 
Airy,  Sir  George,  175 
"  Annalistic  Tablet,"  the,  27, 

29)  32,  37  n.,  160-166 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  12,  14, 

96 
Apocryphal  literature  of  the 

Jews,  57 
Aramaic  of  Daniel,  the,  42, 

43 
Artaxerxes  I.,  85,  87,  89,  126, 
127,  174 

Behrmann,  25 

Belshazzar,  King,  12,  23,  24, 

29,  3o>  179 
death    of,   32,   33,    34, 

35,  160-166 
Ben-Sira,   52-55,   57,  98  «., 

100-102 
Berosus,  17,  19,  40,  154,  163 
Bevan,  Professor,  69,  88  n. 
"  Books  "  the  (Dan.  ix.  2),  1 79 
Borsippa,  24 

Boscawen,  Mr.  St.  Chad,  163 
Buddhism,  46  n. 


Calendar,  the  Jewish,  171- 

Cambyses,  32 

Canon,     testimony     of,     to 

Daniel,  99-1 11,  179 
"  Caper-berry,"  the,  170  n. 
Captivity,  the,  21,  113,  157 
Carchemish,    16,    17,    94  n., 

154,  155 

''  Chaldeans"  =  wise    men, 

45  n.,  17c) 
Cheyne,  Professor,  42  «.,  50, 

76  n. 
Chronological       difficulties, 

82-91,  120  ft. 
Clinton,  Fynes,  120  «.,  154, 

155,  156,    172,    174,    177, 
178 

Crucifixion,  the.  See  "  Pas- 
sion." 

"  Cyrus,"  a  title,  85 

Cyrus,  King,  22,  27,  30,  32, 
33>  355  89,  126,  160-165 


Daniel,  personality  of,   7, 
97,  98 


18^ 


t84 


INDEX 


Daniel,  his  age  when  exiled, 

19,  63,  64 

fame  of,  64-66 

testimony  of  the  Canon 

to,  60,  99-1 1 1 
Darius  Hystaspes,   89,   118, 

119,  121  11. 
Darius  the  Mede,  12,  31,  33, 

36-41,  179 
David,  King,  59 
"  Desolations,"  era  of  the,  21, 

89,  112,  1 1 5-1 20 
De  Wette,  5 
D'Orsay,    death   of   Count, 

36  «. 
Driver,  Professor,  23,  38,  43, 

51,  55  «.,  58 
his     Book    of   Datiiel, 

his       indictment        of 


Daniel,  179-182 
—  his     answer     to 
present  scheme,  135 


the 


ECCLESIASTICUS,    Book    of, 

52-55»  57,  98  «.,  100-102, 

179 

the  "  Cairene,"  54 

Edersheim,  Dr.,  52,  100  ;/., 

108 
Eichhorn,  4,  5 

Esther,  Book  of,  58,  59,  88  « 
Ezekiel,  mention  of  Daniel 

in,  62-66,  98 
Ezra,  Book  of,  40,  57,  125 


Farrar,  Dean,  his  estimate  of 

the  Bible,  9,  10,  20 
his  blunders,  2,  13,  14, 

16-17,  18,  21,  24,  25,  63- 

64,  82,  83,  84,  88 
"  Father,"  meaning  of,  23 

Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall, 

176 
Girdlestone,  Canon,  no 
Gobryas   (Gubaru),    32,   37, 

160-166 
Great   Synagogue,    the,    44, 

99,  100  «. 
Greek  words  in  Daniel,  42, 

43,  44,  47,  144 

Haggai,  prophecy  of,  119 
Hebrew  of  Daniel,  the,  42, 

43,  49,  SO,  53 
Higher  Criticism,  the,  i  ff., 

II,  61,   80,   95,   142,    143, 

146,  182 
Historical  errors  of  Daniel, 

12-41 
Hosea,  Book  of,  55 
Hyrcanus,  John,  67,  104,  105 

Incarnation,  the,  72-78 
Inspiration,  11,  20,  56,  77  n. 


Jehoiakim,  King,  12, 15,  16, 

17,  18,  19,  22,  94,  153 
Jeremiah,  20,  21,  157 
Jesus.    See  "  Ben-Sira." 
Farrar,  Dean,  his  Book  of  \  Josephus,  38,  83,  84,  86,  103 


Daniel,  2jff. 


Julius  Africanus,  135 


INDEX 


185 


Kautzsch,     Professor,    25, 
168 

Keil,  143 

Kethuvim,  the,  58,  59,  103 

Kitto's  Encydopcedia^  61  «., 

100  n. 
Kuenen,  6 

Language  of  Daniel,  the, 

Lewis,  Sir  G.  C,  122 
Luke,  Gospel  of,  131 
Lux  Mundi,  73 

Maccabees,  Book  of,  66-68, 

98,  109,  1 10  n. 
Margoliouth,    Professor,  52, 

55«.,  57  n.,  98  71.,  168 
Megilloth,  the,  59 
Milman,  Dean,  129  71. 
Mt'shna,  the,  120  «.,  155,  156, 

171,  172 

Nabonidus  (Nabunahid), 
King,  23,  27,  29,  33,  35, 
163,  164 

Nebuchadnezzar,  King,    13 
16,17,18,19,20,23,153-158 

spelling   of  the  name, 

45  n-,  144  "■ 
Nehemiah,  126-129,  140  «. 
Neveeitn,  the,  58 
Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  68,  122 

"Palm  Sunday,"  the  first, 

132 
Passion^    date   of   the,    133, 

176-178 


Persia,  Kings  of,  14  n. 
Persian  words  in  Daniel,  43, 

48 
Pinches,  Mr.  Theo.  G.,  161 

162 
Porphyry,  80,  141,  146 
Psalms,  the  Book  of,  59 
"  Ptolemaic      System "      of 

Bible  study,  147 
Punctuation    of  Daniel   ix., 

125,  167-170 
Pusey,  Dr.,  44,  49,  100  n. 

Rawlinson,      Canon,     23, 

125  «.,  154,  174 
Revelation,  Book  of  the,  78, 

121 
Ryle,  Dr.  (Bishop  of  Exeter), 

99  «.,  loi,  102  71.,  103 

Sanhedrim,  the,    97,    103, 

104-109,  172,  173 
Sayce,  Professor,  27,  28,  30- 

36,  47,  160,  161,  166 
Schechter,     Dr.,    54,     55  «., 

102 
Septuagint  version,  the,  108 
Servitude  to   Babylon,    the, 

21,  22,  89,  113,  157 
Servitudes  of  Israel,  the,  90, 

128  71. 

"  Seventy  Weeks,"  the,   82, 

1 12-134 
Sippara,  29,  32,  34 
Specialists,  61 
Stephen,  Sir  James  F.,  51 


1 86 


Tablet.     See    "  Annalistic 

Tablet " 
Tablets,  the  commercial,  33, 

34 
Tebet,  Jewish  fast  of,  118 
Tel  el-Amarna  tablets,  the, 

47 
Tiberius    Caesar,    132,    133, 

176,  177 
Torah,  the,  58 

Westcott,  Bishop,  38,  68 


INDEX 

Xenophon,  38 


Year,   the  prophetic,    116- 
123 

the  ancient,  122 

the  Julian,  134  n. 

the  Jewish,  171 


Zechariah,    prophecy    of, 
119,  132 


k: 


'     '    ^ 


THE   END 


Printed  by  Ballantvne,  Hanson  &"  Co. 
Edinburgh  <&•  London 


BS1555.4  .A548 

Daniel  in  the  critics'  den  :  a  reply  to 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00075  5571 


■',"•('., 


iilpiii 


^MkBs 


m 


''MMM- 


^":^'/'..":'''-'':'^'''Vi'Mi 


.-^■ 


:!:(■:,'■; 


iiilii 


;l;:'' :!-■'■  !•  I 


